the temptation of christ - wordpress.com€¦ · page 3 brother roberts pointed out that the truth...

THE TEMPTATION* OF CHRIST

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION...................................................................................... 2

PART 1 A FEW THOUGHTS ON THE TEMPTATIONS ............................... 6

PART 2 CHRIST TEMPTED ..................................................................... 7

PART 3 THE TEMPTATION OR TRIAL OF CHRIST .................................. 8

PART 4 THE TEMPTATION OF CHRIST .................................................. 11

PART 5 THE TIMES OF CHRIST .............................................................. 19

PART 6 THE TEMPTATION IN MATTHEW & LUKE................................. 41

PART 7 THE TWO TRIALS...................................................................... 43

APPENDIX .............................................................................................. 53

WHO WAS THE TEMPTER? .................................................................... 57

Part 1). Is a well balanced article by bro Galbraith showing how that the

master would repel evil suggestions.

Part 2). Shows that the Master was of our nature in his trial.

Part 3). Some general comments in the early ‘pioneer’ days.

Part 4). Here bro. HPM addresses the process of the temptation of the Lord

and perhaps would be a suitable start for the young.

Part 5). Is in more detail for those who would like a deeper consideration and

covers the masters trial and the background to A.D. 70 and beyond. The

political times both Jewish and Roman are vital to our understanding.

Part 6). Considers the differences between the gospel records of Matthew and

Luke showing that they were different ongoing occasions.

Part 7). Is an analysis of the two trials of the Lord.

‘Appendices’ are comments made by brethren from their books largely now

neglected and some quotations from The Christadelphian.

‘Who was the tempter’ examines all suggestions as to identity; particularly

recommended is the article by bro. J Ullman.

Compiled May 2005 (W.W.T.T. added 2007) M. Walker

* See “faith is the purpose of temptation” “tempted or tested” foot of page 3

THE RECOVERING OF THE TRUTH

“Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation,

it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly

contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.” Jude 1:3

W HEN the truth was rediscovered in the nineteenth century it was through much

study, prayer and contention, amid a populous the majority of whom, had

some knowledge of the Bible:

AGONIZE

To “earnestly contend” for, Jude 1:3 is ‘to strive’, and has the idea of:

To contend in the gymnastic games: 1 Cor. 9:25

To contend with adversaries: 2 Tim. 4:7

To fight, struggle with difficulties and dangers: Col. 4:12

With strenuous zeal, strive: to obtain something Col. 1:29

The contention of brethren of the first and nineteenth centuries, sometimes against

deep held superstition and authority, was hard then and is not easy now. The English

word agonize comes from this Greek word.

“exhorting to agonize for the faith once delivered to the saints”. YLT

ONCE FOR ALL

The faith which was “once delivered”:

“contend for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints”. RSV

“Once” this Greek word has the idea of:

Once, one time:

Once for all:

This was not confined to Jude’s day, this is a principle of all time in the struggle

between “the seed of the woman”, and “the seed of the serpent” and in the 19th

century the brethren were contending for the uncovering of the long buried and

sometimes deliberately distorted understanding of the glorious truth of the Bible, as

some long lost treasure.

The apostle Paul in his day also advises:

“Put on the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to stand against the wiles

of the devil.” Eph 6:11

This defence of the truths then agonizingly brought to light after centuries of neglect

157 years ago now in 2005 is even more needful.

LEST WE SHOULD LET THEM SLIP

“Therefore we ought to give the more earnest heed to the things which we have

heard, lest at any time we should let them slip”. Heb. 2:1

INTRODUCTION

Brother Roberts pointed out that the truth was uncovered by the agency of brother

Thomas;

(“Dr. Thomas and his Mission”)

“THE truth as summarized in the phrase, “the things concerning the Kingdom of

God and the Name of Jesus Christ,” (Acts 8:12.) has not been long before this

generation. It is not long disentombed from the ecclesiastical rubbish, which had

overlain it for centuries. It has come to light within the recollection of the living,

through the labours of a sturdy quarryman who neglected other avocations for the

badly paying but highly distinguished work of excavating the pearl of great price

for the benefit of his contemporaries. This result is no doubt to be regarded as a

providential development, and leading us beyond the proximate agency, should

excite our gratitude to God, that in this hoary age of apostacy, he has permitted the

resuscitation of his truth from the grave of ages.” The Christadelphian 1864

FAITH IS THE PURPOSE OF TEMPTATION

One of the greatest attributes that we can acquire is faith, Paul declares that “without

faith it is impossible to please God” (Heb.11: 6). He also explains how we develop it,

stating that “faith cometh by hearing the word” (Rom. 10:17). The Apostle John wrote that

faith will attain for us the victory in the battle of life; (1 Jn. 5:4) enabling us to look

beyond the present time of trouble to when Jesus will return to reign on earth, when

present trials and problems will give place to the glory and joy of the Kingdom of God.

When the multitudinous Christ is glorified in the Age to come, it will be found that

whilst only one man will have rendered perfect obedience to the Father not one would

have been untried. God subjects all his sons to trial, in order to purify them.

Though in Gen we read that God did tempt Abraham; James tells us that God does not

tempt man: Jam. 1:13

The Hebrew word is translated as ‘Try’, ‘Test’ or ‘Prove’. Though the creator does not

tempt man to sin He does test those whom He desires to remould so as to fit them for

His kingdom, sometimes allowing bad adversaries to do this.

“Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be

tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man But every man is tempted, when

he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.” Jam: 1:13-14

‘TEMPTED’ OR ‘TESTED’

The Greek word for tempter, peirázö is used 40 times according to Wingram and is

translated ‘the tempter’, only twice, the others are tempt 29, try 4, prove 1, assay 1,

examine 1, go about 1;

It comes from the word peirá to test the durability, and is used of experience, trial and

it is used in two main ways: 1. To try, to prove either in a good sense.

2. Or in a bad sense, to tempt by soliciting to sin.

On many occasions, it would therefore be better rendered ‘prove’ or ‘tested’, rather

than ‘Tempting’, as a number of quotations show.

“For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our

infirmities; but was in all points tempted (proved or tested) like as we are, yet

without sin. Heb: 4:15

The Father without soliciting to sin, proves or testes our faith by determining how we

behave under trial. Adam, Abraham, Job, Daniel and his friends, and many others as

various and varied types of the Lord.

“They were stoned, they were sawn asunder, were tempted, were slain with the

sword: they wandered about in sheepskins and goatskins; being destitute,

afflicted, tormented” Heb: 11:37

AN EXTERNAL TEMPTER

When the truth was uncovered again in 1848, brother Thomas believed that Christ was

tempted by an external tempter. Similarly Bre. Robert Roberts; C.C. Walker: Henry

Sulley: Islip Collyer: John Carter; L.G. Sargent; Alfred Nichols; H.P. Mansfield;

A.E.Pennington; R. Osmond; H. Barber and many others believed the same and have

so written or exhorted on the subject.

These articles contain numerous quotations from Christadelphian books and

early Christadelphian magazines. Together with notes verbatim from many speaking

brethren, lectures, classes and personal conversation at times over a considerable

number of years, they represent a small sample of sound brethrens spiritual minds.

There is nothing new in these pages, the information has been assembled in one place

and shows the faith and strength of character of the Son striving against sin and

manifesting his Father’s character under, what for us would be almost unimaginable

stress whilst conducting himself with the bearing of THE KING.

Compiled by Michael Walker. Amended with additions 2007. awawawaw

It is true that in the first fifty years or so, some stated that the temptation was a conflict

solely in the mind of Christ. (As though he were not sure of his place in the plan of his

Father, even after his miraculous birth, so much scripture, growing in the truth, at

least twenty years of close communication. through prayer and absorbing the inspired

word and hearing the voice from heaven. “This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well

pleased”.)

Note that this was a question of fellowship in Australia in 1887:

“About this time several meetings were held to attempt a reconciliation between

the three ecclesias in Melbourne and suburbs, which resulted in unanimity on all

doctrinal points, saving that of the temptation of Christ in the wilderness (as to

whether it was external or internal). Several meetings were held without attaining

unity, at that time”.

(At a further meeting some four months later it was reported that: )

“the opposition so strenuously maintained previously against any second person

in the temptation incident had abated. As a result the way was paved for re-union,

and we have deemed it wise to unite in order that all may be done for the

furtherance of the truth, which we are highly favoured in this dark age to know.”

The Christadelphian volume 24 1887

The Temptation of Christ is linked with that of Eve and it is also true that in the last

half of the twentieth century the theory was proposed that the temptation in Eden was

really a conflict within the mind of Eve, (because I was told, “that serpents don’t

speak!”).

This is despite that scripture teaching that:

“the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the Yahweh

Elohim had made.” Gen 3:1; “Yahweh Elohim said unto the serpent, Because

thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the

field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy

life.” Gen 3:14

There was no doubt in the mind of the editor, brother C.C. Walker:

“That there was a personal adversary present in the temptation, appears both from

the form of the narrative which tells us that someone came to him (Matt. 4:3 ),

and from the consideration that if we exclude a personal adversary, we have to

attribute the wresting of the 90th Psalm to Christ himself, which is out of

harmony with the fact that he was of one mind with the Father, whose

manifestation he was.” The Christadelphian 1901.

We see that in this trial the atoning work of Christ is the basis of the tempting, first for

himself and then for the people.

“In Jesus we see one who according to the first condition was made sin, i.e., was

constituted of sinful flesh or of human nature, but never passed into the second

state, (i.e. transgression of Law) for he instantly repelled any and every impulse

contrary to his Father’s will, as illustrated in temptation by the devil, by Peter,

and in the garden of Gethsemane. Into the third state (i.e. death) he passes

voluntarily, not as a penalty, because he never transgressed God’s

commandments, but in order that he might be delivered from the power of sin in

himself, “in that he died, he died unto sin once” (Rom. 6:10.) and also that he

might deliver others, “So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and

unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto

salvation.” (Heb. 9:28.)”

“Atonement Bro. C.C. Walker page 342

awawawawawawawawawawawawawawawaw

This is an excellent article which summarises the temptations from earlier scriptural examples showing that this one of our sinful nature would be so much more aware of the temptation to sin.

A FEW THOUGHTS ON THE TEMPTATION OF CHRIST.

Brother GALBRAITH

I T is a fundamental principle of the Truth that “in the flesh dwelleth no good thing,”

and that “the carnal mind” (or the mind of the flesh) “is enmity against God.” Also

that “the heart is deceitful above all things and desperately wicked.” Also that the

works of the flesh are “adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, idolatry,

witchcraft, hatred, variance, wrath, strife, sedition, heresies, envyings, murders,

drunkenness, revellings and such like.”

But it is equally true that, while Jesus partook of our weak human nature, he

was at the same time the Son of God, and therefore morally fortified above all other

men. It is also true that God made him of “quick understanding in the fear of

Yahweh,” that he possessed both the perception and the power “to know to refuse the

evil and choose the good.” It is certain that he did not possess the carnal mind, for he

was never at enmity with God; nor was he guilty of any of the works of the flesh

enumerated above. It is also certain that he did not entertain any evil thought, nor was

his conscience defiled in any way. We conclude, then, that he would be instantly aware

of the evil in any suggestion presented to his mind, and that he would just as instantly

repel or repress any temptation to sin. We believe this precludes the idea of Christ

being tempted out of his own consciousness, for if he for a moment entertained evil

thoughts his conscience would be defiled. Does not this exclude the idea of Christ

debating in his own mind whether he would obey God or yield to the impulses of the

flesh? We believe it does, for how could Christ for a moment doubt what was the right

thing to do, or for a moment hesitate to do it? Would that not be “convincing him of

sin”?

But it may be argued that the Scripture states, “He was tempted in all points

like as we are, yet without sin.” I do not for a moment think this means that Christ was

tempted in the same way as, for instance, a depraved man is tempted. Temptation is of

many degrees, and one is tempted in ways that others are not. Righteous men not

infrequently have temptations presented to them which they instantly repel. Did

Abraham hesitate when called upon to offer up Isaac? Did Joseph hesitate when

tempted by Potiphar’s wife? Did Moses hesitate when choosing rather to suffer

affliction with the people of God? Did Daniel or his three friends hesitate when put to

the test by Nebuchadnezzar and Darius?

Then how much more would Christ instantly repel any evil suggestion

presented to him! I believe the quotation means that Christ was tempted in the three

great avenues in which temptation assails us, viz., “the lust of the flesh, the lust of the

eyes, and the pride of life.” It was in this respect that our first parents were tempted,

for it is written that “when the woman saw that the tree was good for food and that it

was pleasant to the eyes and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the

fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her and he did eat.”

Was it not in this same regard that the devil tempted Christ? The records in Matthew

and Luke show that the appeal to Christ in his weak and hungry condition was most

subtle and well thought out, and calculated to test to the uttermost his fidelity to his

Father in heaven. Is it possible to conceive that this calculated endeavour to seduce our

Saviour from his steadfastness to God arose out of his own consciousness, or in other

words that he was his own tempter? Surely not!

Even in the Garden of Gethsemane, when in his agony he cried, “Not my will,

but Thine, be done,” his will was not contrary to his Father’s. Rather was he appealing

for continued help to maintain his will in complete accord with his Father’s, lest he fail

in the last great trial of his life.

We conclude, then, that our Saviour was undefiled in thought, word and deed. Like the

eternal God he was “of purer eyes than to behold iniquity, and could not look upon

sin.” H. S. GALBRAITH. The Christadelphian 1942

awawawawawawawawawawawawawawawaw This article points out that the Lord as sin-bearer offered first for himself whilst the last paragraph offers the solution to this recurring problem.

CHRIST TEMPTED

Brother HENRY SULLEY

T HAT Jesus was “holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made

higher than the heavens” (Heb. 7:26), refers to his generation, which was higher than

that of the angels, That is to say, he was not begotten of the will of the flesh, nor were

the angel messengers of God produced in the same way, as was Jesus, that is, by

begettal through the Holy Spirit. This fact, however, did not alter his physical relation

to the human race, but it would produce in him a character above the ordinary, for it is

written: “He shall make him of quick understanding in the fear of Yahweh” (Isa. 11:3).

He was, in fact, a perfect specimen of the human family, a relationship which he

constantly recognised by calling himself “The Son of Man.”

Heb. 7:26, refers to his generation, which was higher than that of the angels,

for “Unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I

begotten thee?” (Heb, 1:5; Lk. 1:31–35). At the early age of twelve he realised the purpose for

which he was born, and later came to John for baptism, saying, “Thus it becometh us

to fulfil all righteousness” (Matt. 3:15), signifying that he, in common with his brethren,

was required to be buried in baptism unto death, a figure of his actual deliverance from

his relationship to sin by death. He was carefully nurtured and taught of God, just as

human parents nurture and teach their children only in a perfect way (Lk. 4:16: 2:51; Lk. 1:41–

55, 67–79). In these circumstances his mind was in harmony with his Father, expressed in

the terms, “I and my Father are one” (John 10:30). The fact that he did all things that his

Father required of him, saying, “I do always those things that please him” (John 8:29),

does not do away with that other fact that he was tempted like unto his brethren, and

therefore could feel the impulses that arise contrary to the will of God when they were

suggested to him. It was from these temptations that he desired to escape, and did

escape through death, but that was the only way, and the form of his death resulted in

the destruction of that which had the power of death. We are told that “forasmuch as

the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of

the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that

is, the devil” (Heb. 2:14).

Heb. 7:27 refers to the second aspect of Jesus, that he “needed not daily, as

those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the

people’s: for this he did once, when he offered up himself” (Heb. 7:27). He offered a

sacrifice for his own sins when he offered up himself, which solves the difficulty many

feel as to how it can be said that he offered for his own sins when he never

transgressed the law. In view of the fact that we have positive testimony that he did so

offer, i.e., for his own sins, and that he did not transgress the law, it must be obvious

that there is a relation to sin in consequence of our physical nature, and that this

relationship could only be removed in him in the way in which it was removed—by the

shed blood of the Lord Jesus Christ (Heb. 9:12 , 22 , 23: 13:20 ).

HENRY SULLEY. The Christadelphian 1926

awawawawawawawaw

This article contains general comments taken from the early ‘Christadelphian’ as the basic premise was being explained and questions answered.

THE TEMPTATION OR TRIAL, OF CHRIST.

A N examination of scripture shows that the “devil” “came” “went” and was “sent

away” and “left him for a season.” “These words are in the second person Greek

and all such passages in the New Testament are used in a literal sense giving no

indication of a conflict in anyone's mind.”

“So how are we to understand the tempter? Who was he? (clearly not the supernatural

monster the churches adopted from pagan sources.). This needs to be examined in the

context of the first century times.”

Early Christadelphians who had come out of the apostasy compared scripture

with scripture for an understanding. They taught that we should take a verse in its

context; that often a passage hard to understand is explained within the surrounding

verses or the chapter. Also we should first attempt to see how those to whom a

particular scripture is given would understand it before applying it to us, removed by

several thousand years.

Brother Roberts wrote in the Christadelphian 1879.

“It is more than probable that Christ’s temptation, like that of Adam and all his

brethren, included an external tempter and those internal feelings to which he

could appeal. It certainly was not his flesh nature merely, because it is testified

that when the temptation was ended, “the devil left him for a season,” which his

flesh nature did not do.”…..“The first fact that strikes us is that Jesus employed

the Scriptures to repel the suggestions of the tempter. He gave a Bible reason, in

each case, for not doing what he was asked to do. This is suggestive in many ways.

It exhibits Jesus in the aspect of being acquainted with the Scriptures, and of

having that memory of their practical instructions that was equal to his

requirements in the hour of need.”

“The temptation of Christ” by Brother Roberts

“tempted in all points like as we are.” You think this decides it that Christ’s

temptation was in himself—not outside. This by no means follows. Adam was

tempted by a personal tempter. We are often tempted by outside tempters.

Doubtless, we are tempted inside as well. But if Christ was tempted “in all points

like as we are, yet without sin,” then his temptation may have been by an external

tempter also, as we believe.” Christadelphian 1895

Christ his life and work 1800 years ago Brother Roberts

“But why, it has been asked, should he who was sinless be called upon to submit to

an institution which was for the remission of sin. (ie baptism) We need not ask this

question. It is sufficient if God required him to submit to it. But the question will

be asked, rejoins the curious; and there ought to be an answer. Well, and there

is an answer. Although Jesus was not a transgressor by his own action, he was

partaker, for the time being, of a sin-constitution of things. He was born into a

state that was evil because of sin: and he partook of all the evil of that state, even

unto death itself, working in the nature he bore as the son of Mary. It was to

open a way out of that evil state for man that he was “made of a woman, made

under the law.” The way had to be opened conformably with the divine

principles involved. A beginning had to be made with himself as the foundation

on which other men could build. In the first instance, as “the son of David, the

son of Abraham,” he was as much subject to the reign of death established in

Adam’s race by sin, as any of those he came to redeem. His mission was to break

into this reign of death by obedience, death and resurrection, illustrating and

establishing God’s righteousness in all its bearings. For his sake, men’s sins were

to be forgiven. Therefore, he was “the Lamb of God that taketh away the sin of the

world.” In view of all this, it was not incongruous—on the contrary, it was in

beautiful harmony with his work, that, on the threshold of the public phase of it, he

should be called upon to submit to a ritual act which symbolised the putting away

of sin.”……“Paul says “he was tempted in all points like as we are, yet without

sin” (Heb. 4:15). His temptation in the wilderness must, therefore, come into the

category of our experiences. This at once excludes the popular idea that it was the

supernatural personal devil zoology that tempted Jesus. No man is ever tempted in

this way, but always by the incitements of the flesh, either operating

spontaneously within, or presented to us in an objective manner by the

suggestions of a person external to ourselves. The whole narrative of the

temptation shows it was a temptation of the latter sort—a temptation brought to

bear by an external tempter—a person—but not the popular Satan who exists only

in the Papalised imaginations of such as derive their theological ideas from

inherited tradition, and not from the study of the scriptures.”. The Christadelphian

1886 page 200

“Our Lord and master”, by Brother Islip Collyer.

“Scripture tells us that Christ was tempted and tried in all points as we are. That

unquestionably involves suggestions from without, acting on the natural

tendencies of our nature. There is a sense in which it is true that all temptations

are external, for we could not develop as individuals at all apart from our senses

which enable us to see and hear and feel and taste external things. Our whole

personality is built out of this call of the world in which we live and our reaction

to it. When the world suggests possibilities which seem desirable, but which are

contrary to the revealed will of God, we are tempted and tried. If we never saw or

heard such possibilities there would be no temptation. If the possibilities

suggested to us did not in the least degree appeal to us, there would be no

temptation.” The Christadelphian : 1925.

“The temptation of Christ” by Brother Walker.

“It is true that many think there was no personal tempter present in the temptation

of Christ in the wilderness, and that there are difficulties connected with the

interpretation of the accounts of Matthew and Luke. But as you point out, the

exclusion of a personal tempter disturbs the harmony which exists between the

mind of the Father and of Christ. “The devil” deliberately wrested the scripture

(Psa. 91.). Jesus instantly repudiated the misapplication of the text, for he was “of

quick understanding in the fear of the Lord.” Our first parents were tempted by a

personal tempter, the serpent, appealing to internal desires; and it is only in

harmony with this that the second Adam should be so tempted. Dr. Thomas was

convinced that this was the right view, and so are we. See Elpis Israel, p. 70 (ed.

1903). The Christadelphian 1910


These notes on the temptation of Christ are by bro. H.P. Mansfield who had the ability to make a subject easy to understand and gives the exposition, literal meaning, typical significance and exhortation. We can deepen our grasp of what the Lord went through for those who become his people. (Taken from ‘Story Of The Bible’ vol 12 1968)

THE TEMPTATION OF CHRIST.

Brother H.P. Mansfield

FORTY DAYS OF COMMUNING

T HE experience of his baptism powerfully affected the Lord Jesus. He had heard

the Voice of Yahweh publicly proclaiming His divine Sonship, testifying His

pleasure in the conduct of His son; he had felt within himself the surge of the Holy

Spirit which he now possessed without measure; he had been emotionally stimulated

by the momentous occasion and the realisation that he was about to grapple with the

real problems of his life's work, and the forces of darkness that held sway over the

minds of men.

He had an overwhelming desire for solitude to think the matter out, for close

communion with his Father that he might gather strength and guidance to successfully

perform it. He wanted to be alone with God, and the seclusion of the wilderness

provided the means. He hurried away from the busy banks of the Jordan, and sought

the isolation of the desert. Here, for a moment, he withdrew from the world, and a veil

of silence hid him from view.

It seems as though all creation stood aside whilst he gathered strength for the

battle before him. He was "with the wild beasts of the field" (Mark 1:13), but, as

predicted in Psalm 91:13, they did not molest him. They had nothing to fear from the

lonely, quiet, abstracted man who remained there for 40 days, who had thoughts and

feelings for nothing but God at the time. His mind was on a high plane of exaltation, so

that the needs of the body were subordinated to it. All his desires were channelled into

complete unity with his Father, so that even the pangs of hunger went unnoticed for a

time.

HE FASTED FOR 40 DAYS.

The number is significant, and is constantly repeated in Scripture:

Moses twice humbled himself in prayer and fasting for 40 days (Deut.

9:9,18):

Elijah fasted for 40 days (1 Kings 19:8):

Israel's probation in the wilderness lasted 40 years (Num. 14:33-34):

The punishment of a man worthy to be beaten was 40 stripes (Deut. 25:3):

Egypt was humbled for 40 years (Ezek. 29:11-13):

40 days purification followed the birth of a boy and twice 40 for a girl (Lev.

12:4-5):

The flood continued 40 days and nights (Gen. 7.12):

Jonah warned Nineveh of impending disaster for 40 days (Jonah 3:3):

Christ taught his disciples 40 days between resurrection and ascension (Acts

THE TEMPTATION OF CHRIST.

1:3,9):

And after 40 years preaching of the Gospel by the Apostles, the Jewish State

was destroyed in A.D.70.

The number 40 thus has a special significance, and points to probation, humiliation,

affliction and punishment.

Doubtless during this 40 days of fasting the Lord Jesus meditated upon the Scriptures

that predicted his trials and sufferings, and thus in prayer and thought lived the period

of probation and humiliation that was before him. At the end of that time he hungered

(Matt. 4:2).

THE DEVIL COMES TO JESUS

F ORTY days of intense mental concentration had their natural emotional reaction

on the Lord. He now felt completely exhausted, and physically at the lowest point

of resistance. His body began to claim attention; he felt a consuming hunger.

In this condition, the tempter found him.

The tempter (Matt, 4:3) is also called the Devil. This word does not relate to a wicked

angel presiding over a hell of sulphuric flame, but, as a word, signifies "false accuser,"

"adversary," "calumniator." It is the translation of a Greek word which signifies that

which causes one to pass over, or fall over a line — the "line" being the standard of

righteousness set by God.

The word "devil” is used in the Bible in many ways:

Jesus told his disciples that one of them was "a devil" (John 6:70):

He called Peter "satan" on one occasion when Peter was speaking unwisely

(Matt. 16:23):

Human nature is identified with the "devil" in Hebrews 2:14:

And the civil authorities of Smyrna are given that title in Revelation 2:10.

The word signifies any person, thing or influence that is opposed to God.

It never relates to a fallen angel of heaven, for such a doctrine is not taught in the

Bible.

Who was the devil tempting Jesus in the wilderness: a person or an influence? Was it

someone speaking with him? Or was it human nature asserting itself?

Some feel that it was Jesus himself, and that the temptation came from within.

They suggest that very natural thoughts came into the mind of Christ, which he

instantly repelled. For example, how natural it would be for a man to want bread after

hungering for 40 days!

But there are serious objections to this. For example, it is said that "the tempter

came to him" (Matt. 4:3), and the word, in the original, means to approach him. An

entirely different Greek word would most likely be used to denote to come into

existence, as if a thought suddenly presented itself to him.

Further, the basis of the temptation was not to make stones into bread, but to

demonstrate that he was the Son of God. Surely Jesus would not doubt that fact! He

knew that Joseph was not his Father, he had felt the influence of God upon him from a

child, he had recognised Him as Father at the age of 12, he had recently come from the

experience of Jordan where he had heard the Divine Voice proclaiming him to be the

beloved Son, he had felt the Holy Spirit filling him without measure, and he had been

in communion with the Father for 40 days!

Could such a one doubt that he was the Son of God?

It seems difficult to believe so.

And notice that that is the basis of the temptation — not merely the satisfaction of

hunger!

The Tempter did not say: "You are hungry, make bread out of these stones;" he said,

"IF THOU BE THE SON OF GOD, command that these stones be made bread."

In the following temptations, the "devil" went further, he quoted the Bible to

justify a sin. Would the Lord, with his mind filled with the Scriptures, knowing them

as no other man, helped by the Spirit that guided him into all wisdom, and possessing

the Mind of his Father, use the Bible to support a sin? It seems unthinkable.

Who, then, could the devil have been?

He must have been a Jew, because he spake of Jesus as the Son of God:

He must have known the Scriptures, because he freely quoted them; he must

have had some influence in the land because he invited the Lord to submit to

his lead.

That is almost all we can say of him.

He could have been a priest in high position, or a leader among the Pharisees or

Sadducees. It is obvious that there were many .of these who were then awaiting the

coming of the Messiah, in the hope that he would lead the nation from under the

thraldom of Rome, to the glory that was promised it when Messiah would come (Mic.

4:8. Isa. 2:2-4). Some of these leaders had been down to hear John, and had discussed

among themselves as to whether he was the Messiah. Indeed, such a question had been

asked John, with possibly the veiled suggestion that he might become a national leader

delivering Jewry from its enemies, only to be severely rebuked by the Baptist.

No doubt, some of these leaders had been present at the dramatic moment when

the Lord stepped forth from the crowd to be baptised, and the light of heaven had been

seen flashing down upon him, and the voice of heaven heard thundering out its

message, and perhaps they thought that if he were, indeed, the Messiah, they

would bring him into their counsels of state.

If so, it was not the only time that Jews called upon Jesus to assume the

position of earthly leader. On another occasion, at least, the Jewish people tried

to "take him by force, to make him a king" (John 6:15).

But was he really the Son of God?

They did not want to make a mistake, but when they came looking for him, he

was missing. A search was made for him, and at the end of the 40 days, he was

found in the desert.

The tempter came to Jesus. Here was an excellent opportunity to test and see if

he really were the Son of God, or whether a mistake had been made at the

banks of the Jordan. *

* In the Greek, the phrase "it is written," is in the perfect tense, indicating that which remains and abides. The principle enunciated by the Lord on this occasion is an abiding, eternal lesson. H.P.M.

APPEAL TO THE LUST OF THE FLESH

A consuming hunger dominated the Lord Jesus after his forty day’s fast in the

wilderness, and upon this the tempter played in his first attack. Scattered about

were stones, curiously shaped in the rounded form in which loaves of bread were made

by many housewives in Judea, and they provided the suggestion for the first

temptation.

"If thou be the Son of God,*" declared the tempter, "command that these stones

be made bread!"

"If thou be the Son of God!" was a taunt the Lord was also destined to hear as he hung

helpless on the stake (Matt. 27:49). Thus, at both the beginning and end of his ministry

he had the same challenge flung at him.

The presence of the stones gave point to the temptation. The pangs of hunger work all

the more powerfully when they are stimulated by a lively imagination, and as the Lord

glanced at them, he would feel the desire to satisfy his need more keenly.

And why not do so? Is it not legitimate for men to eat? Did not Yahweh satisfy

the famishing Elijah with food? David fleeing from Saul was given hallowed bread. (1

Sam. 21:4). Should not the Son of God be cared for in all necessary things?

All these questions might be answered in the affirmative. But the tempter was not

concerned with those matters; he was not even concerned with satisfying the hunger of

the Lord. He wanted the Lord to demonstrate by miracle two things:

1. That he was the Son of God:

2. He could and would, satisfy the needs of the flesh.

The Lord had not come into the world, nor had the Spirit been given to him for that

purpose. His was a life of denial, not of satisfying the flesh. The Apostle taught:

"Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he

suffered” (Heb. 5:8).

It was necessary for Jesus to set an example of absolute denial of the flesh in order to

serve God completely. He had complete trust in the Father to provide him with the

necessities of life, and was content to wait His convenience. Never once was the Spirit

used by him to satisfy his own personal needs or wants of the body. Never once (even

under extreme provocation) did he allow even the most legitimate desires of the flesh

to deflect him from the course of duty. He set the pattern of his life in rejecting this

first temptation.

He reminded the tempter of the history of Israel in the wilderness. Yahweh had

suffered the people to hunger, and then had fed them with food from heaven, in order

to impress upon them a most important lesson. The experience of Israel demonstrated

an important principle, and the Lord now reminded the tempter of it.

"It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that

proceedeth out of the mouth of God" (Deut. 8:3).

"It is written!" The Lord directed his adversary to the Scriptures which are capable of

sustaining people under trial, and which provided a complete answer to the question,

"Art thou the Son of God?"

Thus, in this first temptation, the adversary had called upon the Lord to demonstrate

his Sonship by revealing his ability to satisfy the cravings of the flesh; in answer, Jesus

had pointed to the Scriptures which reveal the need of denying the flesh to serve God.

APPEAL TO THE PRIDE OF LIFE

IN answer to the first temptation, Jesus had declared his complete trust in God to

provide the necessities of life in His own good time.

The tempter now attacked him on that very point: his trust in God.

He took Jesus to a pinnacle of the Temple, perhaps to the top of Solomon's porch

which overlooked a deep, rugged valley. It was itself some 150 ft. high, and built on a

wall over 400 ft. high. From this dizzy height, the head might well swim, as one

looked down into the rocky valley far below.

The Tempter put forth his second temptation. Jesus had rebutted the first

challenge by reference to Scripture which emphasised his trust in God. Now the

tempter cunningly used these very methods to set before the Lord his scheme.

"If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down; for it is written, He shall give His

angels charge concerning thee: and in their hands they shall bear thee up, lest at

any time, thou clash thy foot against a stone!" (Ps 91:11)

It was a clever, but specious, use of Scripture. The tempter was appealing to fleshly

pride by suggesting a dramatic demonstration of Divine care. People would more

willingly follow a leader capable of such overshadowing supernatural influence, and

protection.

THE TEMPTER MISQUOTED SCRIPTURE

But the tempter had really misquoted Scripture. Actually, Psalm 91:11-12 reads: "He

shall give his angels charge concerning thee to keep thee in all Thy ways" and these

words limit the promised protection, to the end in view. The Psalm does not mean that

God would protect His son if he deliberately threw himself down from such a height,

but it meant that if he kept close to his Father, his ministry would be a success, and he

would have Divine protection from all his enemies to that end, until the time came to

deliver up his life in the way appointed.

This attack was all the more subtle inasmuch as the tempter had quoted the

Bible in support of his suggestion. How often is this done by worldly men! How

frequently are the Scriptures misused to support that which is wrong in both teaching

and practise!

The tempter did that on this occasion.

But again the Lord rebutted the suggestion by a further reference to the Bible which

put its teaching in proper balance. He answered:

"It is written again, Thou shalt not tempt Yahweh thy God."

The word in the original (ekpeirazo) rendered "tempt" is a more intensive form than

the verb usually used. It signifies to tempt to the extreme, to presume on God's

protecting power, to rely upon His miraculous intervention to save from the results of

one's own presumption and folly.

That is entirely different to a childlike trust. A real trust is based upon complete

belief in God; to tempt Him is to seek some means of proving His ability or power to

save. The former is based on confidence; the latter is founded on doubt. But the Lord's

complete command of Scripture, sharpened by the spirit itself (Isa. 11:1-2), enabled

him to instantly see the evil in the suggestion, and to completely rebut it by reference

to the very means the tempter had used in an attempt to give power to his words.

APPEAL TO THE LUST OF THE EYES

A final temptation remained. As the promised Messiah, it is the purpose of God that

Jesus should rule the world. But the Lord knew clearly that the path to glory lay

through the shadow of the valley of death, for the stake must come before the crown.

He had expressed as much at his baptism, when he had declared, "thus it becometh us

to fulfil all righteousness," for his baptism was a symbol of death, burial and

resurrection.

But the tempter had a short cut to glory. Figuratively, he took Jesus up into a

high mountain, and described in panoramic glory the majesty of world power. It was a

very attractive and seductive view that he set out, a position of political eminence even

then held by the infamous and gloomy Tiberius, Emperor of Rome. The tempter,

whoever he was, exercised considerable political influence and power (Luke 4:6), and

believed that with the aid of Christ, all the world could be brought into subjection to

him and to the Lord. To obtain this power and glory, however, Christ would have to

submit to his leadership, would have to follow the plans he had skilfully contrived to

that end, and which he was confident would bring success.

"All these things will I give thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship me," he declared.

The Lord knew that the idea was impossible, even if it were desirable. The tempter

doubtless imagined that if Christ were the Son of God he would have all the powers of

the universe at his command, no matter whether he obeyed the will of God or not.

But that was not so.

Though Jesus was the Son of God, he still had to conquer over self before there would

be placed into his hands "all power both in heaven and in earth" (Matt. 28: 18).

The tempter imagined that with Christ's power harnessed to his national ambitions and

plans of conquest, success would be assured, and the prophecies which speak of world

dominion stemming from Jerusalem, would be then fulfilled.

Christ knew different. His understanding the Word revealed to him that he was

to be manifest as the "Lamb of God to be offered for the sin of the world" before he

could be revealed as the Lion of the tribe of Judah. To reverse this order of things was

impossible; to seek political glory without laying the foundation for saving men's lives,

would be to defeat the main purpose of His birth (1 Tim. 1: 15). He instantly rejected

the idea. Turning to the tempter, he commanded:

"Get thee hence, satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God,

and Him only shalt thou serve."

Once more, his command of Scripture stood him in good stead. Again, the thought of

sin was expelled by the power of the Word. The tempter could see that it was

impossible to shake Christ's resolve. Jesus knew that there was but one way to gain the

end in view, and that was by complete obedience to the will of God, as expressed in

the Word. That Christ determined to do, and three times stated his determination to the

tempter.

So the tempter left him, but only for a time. Christ was to be exposed to many

more trials before his ministry of salvation should end upon the stake

Meanwhile, "angels came and ministered unto him." They supplied him with food,

and strengthened him in his determination to serve his Father. Thus, instead of Jesus

submitting to the tempter, angels ministered unto him, testifying to his triumph over

the flesh.

WHAT THE TEMPTATION ACCOMPLISHED

THE Lord's three replies came from the two closely connected chapters of Scripture,

Deuteronomy 6 and 8. They have for their background three significant incidents in

Israel's deliverance as a nation:

1. The provision of manna in the wilderness (Deut. 8:3):

2. The deliverance from Egypt (Deut. 6:12-13):

3. And the supply of water from the rock (Deut. 6:16).

The manna, the water, the deliverance all point forward to the work of Christ.

The three temptations express the three possible forms from whence temptation can

come. John wrote: "For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of

the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world" (1 John 2:16).

The first temptation had played on the lust of the flesh, as the tempter used the

natural hunger of the Lord to draw him from complete trust in the Father.

The second temptation appealed to the pride of life, as from the dizzy heights of

the pinnacle of the Temple to where the Lord was taken, the adversary explained

the effect such a miracle as he suggested, would have on the people of the land.

The third temptation paraded the lust of the eyes before the Lord, as the tempter

described to him the kingdoms of the world and offered him the power and glory

of them.

In Luke's narrative (Ch. 4:13), the temptation* in the wilderness is described as "every

kind of temptation". He varies the order of the temptations to conform to John's

statement in 1 John 2:16, whilst Matthew's account records them in the order in which

they actually occurred.** All the desires and strong feelings of the flesh can be

summed up in these three forms of temptation. They remind us that a person who

allows mere emotion of the flesh to guide him into what is truth, or what course of

action he should follow, has three most powerful arguments against doing the will of

God!

It is most significant, that sin first made its appearance in the world, after the

flesh had been played upon through these three emotions. Eve looked upon the

forbidden tree, and saw that it was "good for food (lust of the flesh), and pleasant to

* That is, according to Rotherham's translation. ** Notice how Matthew puts them in sequential order, by the use of such words as "then" (Mat. 4:5), "again" (v.8), "then" (v,10). H.P.M.

the eyes (lust of the eyes), and a tree to be desired to make one wise (pride of life),

and took of the fruit thereof" (Gen. 3:6).

She desired to be as God (R.V.), a hope that is set before all those who do His

will (see Zech.. 12:3. Rom. 5:3. 2 Pet. 1:4. Rev. 3:12). But she took the wrong way to

attain unto this honoured state, grasping at that which was then forbidden her. Where

she failed, the Lord succeeded. She brought sin into the world; the Lord manifested the

righteousness of God.

Whereas she grasped at equality with God, the Lord thought it "not a thing to be

grasped" (Phil. 2:6 R.V.), but instead "humbled himself, and became obedient unto

death, even the death of the stake."

Because of that:

"God hath also highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every

name: that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow and every tongue should

confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father" (Phil. 2:9-11).

This humbling of himself in obedience and this exaltation of the Lord in triumph was

foreshadowed on that lonely day when accosted by the tempter, the Lord rejected every

form of temptation, and at the last, angels came and ministered unto him.

The preparation of his mind during the forty days' fasting and meditation, his triumph

over the trial to which he was ultimately subjected, helped to fit the Lord for his public

ministry which now began.

awawawawawawawaw

This article looks at the temptations in a little more detail against the political background of the times as recorded by Daniel chapter 2 and chapter 11.

THE TIMES OF CHRIST

O n the death of Alexander, one of his generals a brazen thigh of brass (Dan. 2:32)

dominated the land. A brutal tyrant ambitious for power came to the throne. He

hated the Jewish people, and determined that they must worship the Greek gods. His

name was Antiochus Epiphanes.

“And arms shall stand on his part, and they shall pollute the sanctuary of

strength, and shall take away the daily sacrifice, and they shall place the

abomination that maketh desolate.” Dan. 11:31

Antiochus Epiphanes:

1. Suppressed the Daily sacrifice:

2. Profaned the Sabbath:

3. Forbad circumcision:

4. Burnt copies of the law and prophets:

5. Put to death all transgressors of his laws:

6. Erected idols everywhere:

7. Forced eating of swine’s flesh:

8. Sacrificed female pig in the temple:

All this caused Judas Maccabaeus, (family of priests), to rebel and with the little help

they became free of foreign power for some fifty years:

“Now when they shall fall, they shall be holpen with a little help: but many shall

cleave to them with flatteries.” Dan. 11:34

In passing, it is a principle that Yahweh chastens His people both natural and spiritual:

“And some of them of understanding shall fall, to try them, and to purge, and to

make them white, even to the time of the end”: Dan. 11:35

Our chastening is because “it yieldeth the peaceable fruit of righteousness” Heb. 12:11

HEROD

During a time of conflict in the ruling family the Romans came in to arbitrate

and the family of Herod came to power. Herod was not a Jew though married to one

and is called ‘a ‘stranger’:

“The stranger that is within thee shall get up above thee very high; and thou shalt

come down very low.” Deut. 28:43

The Roman ‘iron legs’ (Dan 2:33) domination were spoken of 850 years before: iron

weapons, foreign tongue oppression:

“Therefore shalt thou serve thine enemies which Yahweh shall send against

thee, in hunger, and in thirst, and in nakedness, and in want of all things: and

he shall put a yoke of iron upon thy neck, until he have destroyed thee. Yahweh

shall bring a nation against thee from far, from the end of the earth, as swift as

the eagle flieth; a nation whose tongue thou shalt not understand A nation of

fierce countenance, which shall not regard the person of the old, nor shew

favour to the young: And he shall eat the fruit of thy cattle, and the fruit of thy

land, until thou be destroyed: which also shall not leave thee either corn, wine,

or oil, or the increase of thy kine, or flocks of thy sheep, until he have destroyed

thee.” Deut. 28:48-51

The Lord was brought up in this ancient ‘police state’, where the nation looked all the

time for release from the occupying power; but he knew that they would destroy

Jerusalem and he had to live with this all the time.

“And he shall besiege thee in all thy gates, until thy high and fenced walls come

down, wherein thou trustedst, throughout all thy land: and he shall besiege thee

in all thy gates throughout all thy land, which Yahweh thy God hath given thee” Deut. 28: 52

THE TEMPTING

“The Lord and Master” by brother Islip Collyer

“Scripture tells us that Christ was tempted, (tested) and tried in all points as we

are. That unquestionably involves suggestions from without, acting on the natural

tendencies of our nature. There is a sense in which it is true that all temptations

are external, for we could not develop as individuals at all apart from our senses

which enable us to see and hear and feel and taste external things. Our whole

personality is built out of this call of the world in which we live and our reaction

THE TIMES OF CHRIST

to it. When the world suggests possibilities which seem desirable, but which are

contrary to the revealed will of God, we are tempted and tried. If we never saw or

heard such possibilities there would be no temptation. If the possibilities

suggested to us did not in the least degree appeal to us, there would be no

temptation”. The Christadelphian 1925.

THE TEMPTER

T HERE is evidence to suggest that the ‘Tempter’ was a personal agent or agents, of

the Sadducees, who were the secular rulers in Judea holding the family office of

high priest, claiming to have descended from Zadok the priest and controlling the

Sanhedrin:

Just consider the context and particularly the political times. About 150 yrs

before this, the nation, in a belief in the speedy establishment on earth of Yahweh’s

kingdom, (‘History of the Jewish People’ Kent page 334) followed Judas Maccabaeus,

(a priest), and threw off the Greeko-Syrian Antiochus Epiphanes and become an

independent sovereign state. Dan 11:34.

The nation never forgot and looked for deliverance from the Romans from

among themselves. (cp. John 6:15). It was the ruling class in the person of the High Priest

who would have anointed a king to drive out the Romans. (Matt. 4: 9). (2 Chr. 23:11.).

A MAN SENT FROM GOD

“There was a man sent from God, whose name was John.” John 1:6

John came as a witness to the one who was the light of the world. John 1:7 The prophets

had been silent for four hundred years, Micah 3:6 until the momentous birth of Christ

amid great signs thirty years before and now another holy man appeared. The

appearance of this one from the wilderness caused the ruling council to send to

interrogate him “….the Jews sent priests and Levites from Jerusalem to ask him,

Who art thou?” John 1:19

This was in accordance with the spirits instructions for checking that a new

prophet did speak the word of Yahweh and it became practice to record a short-term

prophecy to prove his credentials. Deut 18: 20-22. Was John the promised anointed,

Christ, Messiah whom they expected? (incidentally sometimes the short term prophecy

is contained in a long term prophecy as can be demonstrated from Isaiah and others

their short term prophecies having been fulfilled we can be certain of the kingdom

prophecies.)

“And he confessed, and denied not; but confessed: I am not the Christ.” Jo. 1:

20

Was he then Elijah who was to come? (Mal. 4:5). “And he saith, I am not.” John 1:

21

Was he then (the) prophet like unto Moses? (Deut 18: 18. mg.). “And he answered,

No.”

These people of the Sadducee class had to have an answer for their masters at

Jerusalem:

“Then said they unto him, Who art thou? that we may give an answer to them that

sent us. What sayest thou of thyself?” John 1: 22

John’s reply was, “I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness, Make straight the

way of the Lord, as said the prophet Esaias.” John 1: 23

Now that he was quoting the prophet, the Pharisees, (who respected the

prophets), take over the questioning “And they which were sent were of the

Pharisees.” John 1: 24. They ask him about his baptizing and his work. John 1: 20-26

These would have reported back, that John had testified that he was the voice to

announce:

“the glory of Yahweh shall be revealed, and all flesh shall see” Isa. 40:5

That John had baptised Jesus and he had further testified that:

“this is the Son of God.” John. 1:36:

“the Lamb of God!”. John. 6:15

“I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and it abode

upon him.” John. 1:32:

That a voice from heaven said:

“Thou art my beloved Son; in thee I am well pleased.” Luke 3:22

They were bound by their traditions and Deut 18:20-22 to investigate this second man;

did they then follow him into the wilderness?

“The Sadducees only accepted the first 5 books written of Moses, and it is significant

that “when the tempter came to him”, (Mat 3:3) (all 85 times used of literal approach)

that Jesus answered him in each case from the 5th book -Deuteronomy. Later the

Sadducees agreed with Judas to betray his Lord: John 13:2; cp Luke 22:2-5 (In these passages

they are called devil or diabolos.) Perhaps the strongest point is that the tempter

misquotes psalm 91, this the Lord as “The word made flesh” could never do. Isa. 42:21

THE TEMPTATIONS

It is obvious that the temptation in Matt ch. 4 is a different time to the temptation in

Luke ch. 4 (for more detail look at the article sometime, on page 32, there are so

many differences showing that it must be two occasions.)

Matthew states:

“when he had fasted forty days and forty nights”

“And when the tempter came to him…” Matt 4:2.3

This implies that this temptation was at the end of the forty days and nights.

Luke tells us:

“Being forty days tempted of the devil” Luke 4:2

This is spoken of as a continuous temptation and Mark also adds:

“And he was there in the wilderness forty days, tempted of Satan” Mark 1:13

Weymouth translates “tempted all the while by the Devil. During those days He ate

nothing”

“during forty days, being tempted of the devil”. ASV:

“forty days being tempted by the Devil” YLT:

Luke tells us that:

“And when the devil had ended all the temptation, he departed from him for a

season.” Luke 4:13

This implies the tempter left for a while, whether days or hours and returned later, as

Matthew states that at the end of his narrative, that Jesus finally sent him away:

“Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan:…” Then the devil leaveth

him, and, behold, angels came and ministered unto him” Matt. 4:10, 11

Note “The devil that tempted the Lord “departed from him for a season,” which

cannot be affirmed of his nature.” The Christadelphian 1895:

As to the thought that one diabolic adversary devil/satan could not stay with the

Lord all that time; if it were the ‘Jews’ who had sent him and it was a group who went

to John, John 1:22 they could easily have operated a shift system in an attempt to wear

down the Lord, since the present reward they coveted for themselves was so great.

Consider how these same protagonists, dealt with Judas three years later:

“And supper being ended, the devil having now put into the heart of Judas

Iscariot, Simon's son, to betray him” John 13:2

There was a conflict in this mans mind but it was an external source “the devil” who

had made an prior tempting offer and Judas looking to present advantage in this world,

now made up his mind to betray his master.

Who was this devil who had put this betrayal into Judas’ heart?

“Then one of the twelve, called Judas Iscariot, went unto the chief priests” Matt

26:14

“And Judas Iscariot, one of the twelve, went unto the chief priests, to betray him

unto them. And when they heard it, they were glad, and promised to give him

money. And he sought how he might conveniently betray him”. Mark 14:10-11

In this case comparing scripture with scripture we can equate Judas’ ‘devil’ with the

Sadducee Priest/family Sanhedrin.

THE PINNACLE OF THE TEMPLE

“Then the devil taketh him up into the holy city,

and setteth him on a pinnacle of the temple” Matt. 4:5

Brother Roberts saw no difficulty with this diabolos conducting the master to this

place:

“The pinnacle of the Temple, as we are informed by Josephus, was an elevated

court or promenade, which, on one side, overlooked the depths of the valley of

Jehoshaphat to a depth of two hundred feet, and offered the facility for self-

destruction which the tempter asked Jesus to wantonly brave, on the strength of

the promise made in reference to inevitable suffering. To this court, the tempter,

doubtless, walked with Jesus, and made the vain proposal suggested by the

circumstances.” (Christendom Astray page 137)

It is interesting to note that at that time, only a priest a Sadducee could have escorted

the Lord into the Temple since he was of Judah (this was about A.D. 30), as Josephus

shows:

“During the Roman procurator Coponius' administration in Judea (A D 26), the

priests, as was their custom, threw open the gates of the temple at midnight during

Passover. But some Samaritans, who had slipped into Jerusalem, scattered human

bones in the porticoes and throughout the temple. As a result, from then on, the

priests excluded everyone from the Temple (sanctuary)”. Josephus (Maier edition)

page 262.

(According to Edersheim, the rabbis had a tradition that the Messiah would stand on

the roof of this portico and there make a proclamation to Israel; so that there was a

very good reason for this particular temptation.) W.H.B. The Christadelphian 1947

(As to any objection that the Lord would be so weak after a 40 day fast as to be unable

to travel this distance, or even ascend the mountain, a man in recent years after a six

week fast, was painting his house; the Lord was a carpenter by trade and so used to

physical labour. Part of Jewish boys education was to provide them a basis skill to fall

back on. see Acts 18:3)

Brother C.C. Walker wrote these words concerning this temptation:

“But, to take the incident of the pinnacle of the temple first, we have here on the

part of “the devil” a deliberate wresting of Scripture (Ps. 91.), which is as

deliberately repudiated by Jesus, who was “of quick understanding in the fear

of Yahweh,” and would not misapply a divine promise of deliverance “in

trouble” to an act of presumption in “tempting Yahweh God of Israel.” But the

principle that stands out for our apprehension is the same as in the “hunger”

incident, namely, the understanding and belief; and right application of the

written word of God: “ It is written again, Thou shalt not tempt Yahweh thy

God.” Again the reference to the Scripture is most striking (see Deut. 6:16, Ex.

17:7). Israel’s tempting God, and the rock that was smitten, were the things

brought to bear upon the situation. Jesus would be smitten like the rock; but God

would deliver him—but through death. That was what the promise of Psa. 91

really meant. The Sons of God, who are similarly faced with devil-wrested

scriptures, must follow a similar line of defence. The Christadelphian 1909.

ALL THE KINGDOMS OF THE WORLD

“Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain,

and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them” Matt. 4:8

For this temptation Matthew uses the Greek kosmos for world, this word is used of

constitution, order, government; Jesus said "My kingdom is not of this world

(kosmos)". He did not say that it was “not of this earth”, because it is. He said that it

was not of the order of things, as then constituted, which was to do with what are

called the ‘Tetrarchal Kingdoms of Judaea’. (“Tetrarch” means the ruler over the

fourth part of a province); Herod and Phasael, the sons of Antipater, were the first

tetrarchs in Palestine. Herod the tetrarch had the title of king. Mt 14:9 The world (Kosmos), clearly is the land of promise and Moses was permitted to

see the Land of promise from a high mountain before his death :

“Get thee up into the top of Pisgah, and lift up thine eyes westward, and

northward, and southward, and eastward, and behold it with thine eyes: for thou

shalt not go over this Jordan.” Deut 3:27

“And Moses went up from the plains of Moab unto the mountain of Nebo, to the

top of Pisgah, that is over against Jericho. And Yahweh shewed him all the land

of Gilead, unto Dan” Deut 34:1 ¶

So it is possible to see the four kingdoms of Judea from a high mountain:

"The whole of the Jordan Valley is now open to you, from Engedi, beyond which

the mists become impenetrable, to where on the North the hills of Gilead seemed to

meet those of Ephraim. The Jordan is visible below. Jericho is visible beyond. Over

Gilead, it is said, Hermon (formed the northernmost boundary Josh 12 v1), can be

seen in clear weather, but the heat hid it from us. The view is almost that described

as the last on which the eyes of Moses rested, the higher hills of West Palestine

shutting out all possibility of a sight of the (Mediterranean) sea." The historical

geography of the Holy Land. George Adam Smith

Brother R. Roberts wrote:

“The objector will then point to Christ's conveyance to "a high mountain," from

which the devil "showed him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time."

It is obvious that this must be taken in a limited sense; for the fact of ascending a

mountain, to see what was to be witnessed, shows that the field of vision was in

proportion to the altitude. The tract of country seen would be Judea and

neighbouring provinces. The offer of power would therefore relate to these.”

“Christendom Astray” page 202.

This is the land promised to Abraham, nearly the whole of which the Maccabaeus had

ruled in, at that time, their ‘recent memory’.

However Luke uses a different word at a different time as we have seen:

ALL THE KINGDOMS OF THE WORLD IN A MOMENT OF TIME.

“And the devil, taking him up into an high mountain, shewed unto him

all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time.” Luke 4:5

For this temptation Luke uses a completely different Greek word for world

(oikoumene); this is the inhabited earth, the portion of the earth considered civilised by

the Greeks, as distinct from the lands of the barbarians and comprises the Roman

empire; all the subjects of the empire.

“And the devil, leading him up into a high mountain, shewed him all the

kingdoms of the habitable world (oikoumene) in a moment of time.” Luke 4:5 (DBY)

This is just how the word world, oikoumene is used:

“And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar

Augustus, that all the (Roman), world (oikoumene) should be taxed.” Luke 2:1

The Lord spoke of the gospel to be sounded by the Apostles throughout the habitable

world about 40 years after Pentecost Acts ch. 2 before Judah’s commonwealth ended in

A.D. 70.

“And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world (oikoumene)

for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.” Matt. 24:14

The Apostle Paul testifies that the gospel was in fact preached to that entire Roman

world:

“If ye continue in the faith grounded and settled, and be not moved away from

the hope of the gospel, which ye have heard, and which was preached to every

creature which is under heaven; whereof I Paul am made a minister” COL. 1:23

It is not possible to see the Roman habitable from a mountain in Judea. As to “in a

moment of time”, the Greek word stigme (only used once), is said to be like our

"second" of time or tick of the clock and is the shortest measure of time (the opposite

of aion age). Figuratively referring to the briefest moment, its interesting that its used

in the Septuagint Isa 29:5 where Messiah’s real future work is to destroy the elements

of the nations of Nebuchadnezzar’s image:

“Moreover the multitude of thy strangers shall be like small dust, and the

multitude of the terrible ones shall be as chaff that passeth away: yea, it shall be

at an instant suddenly”. Isa 29:5 cp Dan 2:35:

WHO HAD POWER TO BESTOW THESE KINGDOMS AT THAT TIME?

“…all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them” “All these things will I give

thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship me”. Matt. 4: 8, 9

“…all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time.” “All this power will I give

thee, and the glory of them: for that is delivered unto me; and to whomsoever I will I

give” Luke 4: 5, 6

“The ‘devil’ claims to possess the right to the kingdoms of the world, and the Lord

does not dispute it. The ‘satan’ says: “All this power will I give thee, and the

glory of them: for that is delivered unto me; and to whomsoever I will I give it.

If thou therefore wilt worship me, all shall be thine”.”

Here is one person who thinks that he has the right to something, which he is offering

to a second person; if this were a conflict only within Christ’s mind, it raises

insuperable problems.

So comparing scripture with scripture, the tempter wanted the kingdoms of the Judean

(Kosmos) first, which equates to the land promised to Abraham and given to king

David and then to acquire the kingdoms of the Roman Empire (oikoumene), which

equates to the kingdom of men, in the name of the messiah. However the tempter did

not have this power, it was the gift of the Most High God, for His beloved son.

“This matter is by the decree of the watchers, and the demand by the word of the

holy ones: to the intent that the living may know that the most High ruleth in

the kingdom of men, and giveth it to whomsoever he will, and setteth up over it

the basest of men.” Dan. 4:17

“And the lowest of men He doth raise up over it” YLT

“sets over it the lowliest of men.” RSV

“He who is set at nought of men” LXX

Who then did have this power, or thought that he had this power? Certainly not the

Lord, at that time the kingdom was his only in prospect, he had not got it to give.

“Ask of me, and I shall give thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and the

uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession”. Ps 2:8

“He shall have dominion also from sea to sea, and from the river unto the ends

of the earth.” Ps 72:8

There is no doubt that the Sadducee family, who held the office of the high

priest and controlled the Sanhedrin, considered that they could anoint a king to drive

out the hated Romans. This was a long held determination as these notes from many

authors show, and there were precedents.

Nine hundred years before these events when Judah was in a perilous state, Jehoiada

the priest commanded: “And he brought forth the king's son, and gave him the

testimony; and they made him king, and anointed him; and they clapped their hands,

and said, God save the king”. 2 Kings 11:9

THE FINAL ANSWER TO THE DEVIL Matt 4:8

AND THE SATAN Matt 4:8

““Thou shalt worship Yahweh thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.”

“Get thee hence, Satan, for it is written ,

Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.”

Brother C.C. Walker wrote these words:

“There is a curious similitude between this reply and the Lord’s rebuke of Peter

when he instructed him that the kingdom must be entered through crucifixion

( Matt. 16.). Peter would not have it: “Be it far from thee, Lord, this shall not

happen unto thee.” But Jesus replied, “Get thee behind me, Satan, thou art an

offence unto me; for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that

be of men.” And he went on to ask, “What is a man profited if he shall gain the

whole world and lose his own soul.” And then he spoke of his coming and glory,

and promised the foretaste of it in the vision of the transfiguration.” The

Christadelphian. 1909

“After the temptation in the wilderness, Christ was tempted all through his career

; but he always overcame with a reference to the Word. Asked for a sign (Matt.

16.), he referred to Jonas; faced with the question of the tribute money (Matt. 22.),

he referred to the tribute due to God; tempted by the Sadducees, he referred to

Moses at the bush; and by the lawyer concerning eternal life, he referred to what

was written in the law. Betrayed at last by “a devil,” he submitted to the necessary

evil work of “the son of perdition.” Truly he was made perfect through suffering.

And being made in all things like unto his brethren, he is “a merciful and faithful

high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the

people.” The Christadelphian. 1909

THE PRIESTS REVEAL MURDEROUS HATRED

“And when the chief priests and scribes saw the wonderful things that he did, and

the children crying in the temple, and saying, Hosanna to the Son of David; they

were sore displeased” Mt 21:15

“And the scribes and chief priests heard it, and sought how they might destroy him:

for they feared him, because all the people was astonished at his doctrine.” Mr 11:18

“And he taught daily in the temple. But the chief priests and the scribes and the chief

of the people sought to destroy him, And could not find what they might do: for all

the people were very attentive to hear him”. Lu 19:47-48

Brother H.P. Mansfield comments:

“The Apostles knew of the growing hostility, and the determination of the leaders

to apprehend Jesus, and they realised that this must bring matters to a climax.

They doubtless believed that this was the very thing that would force Jesus to

declare himself and proclaim himself King over a revived Kingdom of God. They

were convinced that it was near at hand, and nothing could prevent it (Luke

19:11).” “The Story Of The Bible”.

Why did the priests decide to attempt to destroy the Lord? Consider the details:

Thirty years before at a time of signs; Herod did seek to destroy Jesus; and, in order to

remove that Heir to the Davidic throne, he sent forth and slew all the children that were

in Bethlehem. This disaster was still in the nations mind as many sons had been

murdered who would by now have been the age of the Lord.

The Jews were and still are aware of “The Virgin” prophecy:

“Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin (The Virgin

YLT), shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.” Isa 7:14

The were quite aware that this applied to the birth of the Lord, commentators show

how they have attempted to “obscure this plain text, and weaken this proof of the

truth” “pretend that this Hebrew word signifies a young woman, and not a virgin.

But this corrupt translation is easily confuted”.

The truth of this is seen in how they tried to make the Lord condemn sexual

immorality and so falsely condemn him through his mother by their base implication:

“Then said they to him, We be not born of fornication; we have one Father,

even God.” John 8:41

Tempted (peirazo) tempt, try, prove, assay (as in testing purity of metal). Job 23:10

Jesus tempted (peirazo) by ‘Satan’ Mark 1 v13. Jesus tempted (peirazo) of the ‘devil’ Luke 4 v2 Jesus tempted (peirazo) by Pharisees Mark 8 v11 Mark 10 v2 Jesus tempted (peirazo) by Pharisees & Herodians Mark 12 v15 Jesus tempted (peirazo) by Chief Priests and the scribes Luke 20 v23 Jesus tempted (peirazo) by Lawyer Matt. 22 v35

Jesus tempted (peirazo) by others Luke 11 v16

This heir-apparent had first appeared on the banks of the River Jordan, where John, his

special messenger, was engaged in proclaiming the kingdom

When Jesus was thus baptized, he

"went up straightway out of the water, and lo, the heavens were opened unto

him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon

him."

And "a voice from heaven" said: “This is my beloved son in whom I am well

pleased”

Thus Jesus was anointed and became the Anointed Messiah. As the legal and anointed

heir to David's throne, Jesus Christ at length entered Jerusalem and asserted his claim

to the kingless throne.

He came in royal majesty, riding upon an ass' colt; Jud 5:10 and, as he advanced towards

that capital of David's kingdom:

"many spread their garments in the way; and others cut down branches off the

trees and strawed them in the way."

The disciples placed their garments upon the animal to do regal honour to the one

about to ride it. (cp. 2 Kings 9:13)

“Fear not, daughter of Sion: behold, thy King cometh, sitting on an ass’s colt.” John 12:15

“Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion; shout, O daughter of Jerusalem: behold,

thy King cometh unto thee: he is just, and having salvation; lowly, and riding

upon an ass, and upon a colt the foal of an ass.” Zech. 9:9

The Hebrew is reflexive in sense, "showing Himself a Saviour”; the A.V. margin has

“saving himself” See Heb. 8:27; 5:3 A "king" coming to reign, as LXX “behold the King is

coming unto thee, just, and a saviour”.

The colt was untamed "whereon yet never man sat", (Lu 19:30) it was redeemed as a

firstborn man, the symbol of Israel waiting for their triumphant king. see Ex 4:2

“And every firstling of an ass thou shalt redeem with a lamb; and if thou wilt

not redeem it, then thou shalt break his neck: and all the firstborn of man

among thy children shalt thou redeem.” Ex 13:13

Look at how the people reacted: (note ‘Hosanna save I beseech thee’) i.e. save us from

the Romans)

“And the multitudes that went before, and that followed, cried, saying, Hosanna

to the Son of David: Blessed is he that cometh in the name of Yahweh; Hosanna

in the highest.” Mt 21:9

And the affect upon the rulers:

“And when the chief priests and scribes saw the wonderful things that he did,

and the children crying in the temple, and saying, Hosanna to the Son of David;

they were sore displeased” Mt 21:15

ENTERING JERUSALEM

“And when he was come into Jerusalem, all the city was moved, saying,

Who is this?" Mt 21:10

They recognized the royalty, beheld the kingly majesty, understood the ceremony, and

that this one had come claiming heirship to the long-vacant throne; but they were not

willing to receive him, and to allow the crowning to take place; and so they said:

''Who is this? "

The Lord was of the royal line of David, his genealogy could be easily traced back to

that head, in whose name the throne had been established. His mother was a direct

descendant from David; through Nathan Matt 1 and Joseph, his supposed father, was a

direct descendant through Solomon Luke 3 Hence according to Jewish custom in giving

genealogy it was an easy matter for them to trace the genealogy of Mary's Son back to

David, and to know that he was entitled to the throne.

Jesus knew that they would thus question his authority, and set aside his claim;

and put him to death, and that the city would be destroyed; because of this he had wept

as he came in sight of the city:

“If thou hadst known, even thou, at least in this thy day, the things which

belong unto thy peace! but now they are hid from thine eyes”. Luke 19:42

Jesus, the Christ, therefore, was justified in claiming the throne of David; and

notwithstanding the questioning of the Jews and their cold reception of his Royal

Majesty, he displayed something of his kingly authority as he thus entered Jerusalem;

for he went into the temple of God, where he found those who were engaged in

brokerage, in buying and selling, and making it a market, thus desecrating that sacred

place of worship:

"He overthrew the tables of the money-changers, and the seats of them that sold

doves ; And said unto them: It is written, My house shall be called a house of

prayer; but ye have made it a den of thieves”; Mt 21:12

But they were ignorant; the prophets had declared that their king should come in the

very manner, Jesus thus came and still they demanded a sign.

“Then answered the Jews and said unto him, What sign shewest thou unto us,

seeing that thou doest these things? Jesus answered and said unto them,

Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.” John 2:18-19

“By what authority do you do these things? And who gave you that authority?" they

demanded.

What questions to ask of one who had brought a dead man from the grave, and cured a

man born blind! However, they were not referring to his miracles; they had in mind his

ceremonial entrance into Jerusalem as king, the cleansing of the Temple as a priest,

and the teaching of the people as a prophet! Who gave you the authority to act as King,

Priest and Prophet?

Their hatred of the Lord blinded them to the teaching of the Law upon which

they professed to lean. Did not their leader, Moses, declare that Yahweh would send

them a prophet like unto him (Deut. 18:18)? And how close was the resemblance of

Jesus to Moses? Why, that very hate-filled question, uttered by the priests in the court

of the Temple, might have been an echo of the similar question put to Moses about

1500 years before:” "Who made you a prince and a judge over us?“ (Exod. 2:14).

HPM “The Story Of The Bible”.

THEY KNEW WHO HE WAS!

“He came unto his own, and his own received him not.” John 1:11

There is no doubt that they knew who he was and the Lord shows this in a reply to the

Sadducees:

“And when he was come into the temple, the chief priests and the elders of the

people came unto him as he was teaching, and said, By what authority doest

thou these things? and who gave thee this authority?” Mt 21:23

“Hear another parable” replied the Lord; he spoke to the leaders and also to the

people. Luke 20:9

The Lord delivered to them the parable of the household, the husbandmen and

the heir: a parable that is so crystal-clear in its meaning as to cause the opposition the

Lord had already received to blossom out into a fierce determination to arrest him and

put him to death. (see Matt. 21:46).

“Jesus drew a word-picture of a prosperous vineyard, properly protected, with

suitable buildings, and overshadowed by a tall tower. There was no doubt as to

what all this meant, it was completely obvious to his listeners. Israel is constantly

likened to a vineyard planted by Yahweh (see Isaiah 5:1-5; Psalm 80:8; Ezek. 15).

Isaiah's "Song of the Vineyard" formed the basis of the parable showing in every

way, Yahweh cared for the people whom He had taken to Himself as His own.”

THE HUSBANDMEN

The husbandmen, of course, were the leaders of Israel into whose care Yahweh had

placed His people. They had a grave responsibility conferred upon them, namely, to so

educate the people in His truth, that they would produce fruit to the glory of His name.

The history of Israel, however, reveals that they failed completely in the trust conferred

on them with Yahweh’s messengers the prophets beaten or killed. 2 Chr. 36:14-16:

“But last of all he sent unto them his son, saying, They will reverence my son.

But when the husbandmen saw the son, they said among themselves, This is the

heir; come, let us kill him, and let us seize on his inheritance. And they caught

him, and cast him out of the vineyard, and slew him.” Matt 22:37-39

THIS IS THE HEIR; COME, LET US KILL HIM, There is no disputing as to whom “his well beloved son” represents. It actually

supplied a complete answer to the question that the Lord had refused to answer:

"By what authority doest thou these things, and who gave you that authority?"

More than that, it laid bare the innermost intents of their heart, by revealing that he

knew of their intention to slay him who claimed to be God's well beloved son!

So, at last, the priests had received the answer to their question, together with a

prediction as to what would happen to the nation when it carried out the threat to kill

him—yet the answer and prediction were given in such a way as to prevent the Jews

making any charge of blasphemy against him. He is justly called, the Word, or

Wisdom, of God.

PUNISHMENT UPON THE HUSBANDMEN

The Lord concluded the parable with a question:

"When the Lord therefore of the vineyard cometh, what will he do unto those

husbandmen?" Matt 22:40

There could only be one reply to such a question: a reply that predicted the judgment

that would inevitably fall upon themselves:

"He will miserably destroy those wicked men," some of them declared, "and will

let out his vineyard unto other husbandmen, which shall render him the fruits

in their season!" Matt 22:41 But when the realisation of what this meant came home to them, there burst forth from

some a fervent, involuntary cry of: "GOD FORBID!!" (Luke 20:16). (‘Let it not be!’

YLT)

Jesus then quoted from one of the best-known Passover Psalms that all Jewry would be

chanting about two days from then:

"Did you never read in the Scriptures?" he asked them, “The stone that the

builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner: this is Yahweh's

doing, and it is marvelous in our eyes?" Psa 118:22-23

They had never read it with the significance that the Lord had now given to the

quotation, which made terrible reading; Israel would reject its deliverer, its Messiah.

They were graphically reminded that the land was theirs as a leasehold, Matt. 21:33

“Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and

given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof. And whosoever shall fall on

this stone shall be broken: but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to

powder.” Mt 21:43, 44 Dan. 2:35

“What terrible, final words of indictment and judgment! The nation of Israel comprised

the Kingdom of God (1 Chron. 29:23; 28:5; 2 Chron. 13:8; Ps. 114), and though the glory of the

Kingdom had become dim, it could have been restored if the people had turned to

Yahweh (Ps. 81:13-14). But the attitude of the leaders of the nation to the Messiah and

King whom Yahweh had sent unto them, showed that they were not worthy of the

great honour that would have been paid them if they had accepted him: that of

authority in his Realm.” HPM “The Story Of The Bible”.

The word nation in the Greek is ethnos, which signifies a multitude of people. When it

occurs in the plural, it generally relates to Gentile nations, so that the word does not

necessarily signify a specific or distinct nation, but a multitude of people from various

nations bringing forth such fruits of righteousness as the Kingdom should produce (Matt.

6:33).

Perhaps two ideas are expressed in this word, for it is capable of this dual meaning:

Firstly, that those who are to be saved are a "multitude of people," for they are to

be taken "out of every people, language, nation and tongue" (Rev. 5:9) and made

"one" in Christ (Luke 17:21);

Secondly, that they will actually constitute a specific nation, for they will form the

true "Israel of God" Gal. 6:16..

"Fear not, little flock; for it is your Father's good pleasure to give you the

kingdom" (Luke 12:31).

The ruling authority once vested in Jews after the flesh will be bestowed upon those

who manifest the true qualities of rulership by learning to rule themselves. Among

those who will reign with Christ over the restored Kingdom of God in the future, will

be the Apostles themselves (with the exception of Judas), for Christ promised them:

"Ye which have followed me (as a sheep would the shepherd, and that excluded

Judas), in the regeneration, when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his

glory ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel."

Again, on the eve of his death, he reverted to the promise made:

"I appoint unto you a kingdom," he told the disciples as they ate the last supper

together, "as my Father hath appointed unto me, that you may eat and drink at

my table in my kingdom, and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of

Israel" (Luke 22:29-30).

It was their anticipation of that time that prompted the question asked by the disciples

after the resurrection and glorification of the Lord when he was about to ascend into

heaven:

"Wilt thou at this time restore the Kingdom unto Israel" (Acts 1:6).

THE PRIESTS PLOT TO KILL JESUS

Jesus' exposition of Scripture was clear and final. The priests (Sadducees) and

Pharisees facing him, and who could not escape from his presence because of the large

crowd encircling them, recognised that he spake of them, and they hated him for it.

“And when the chief priests and Pharisees had heard his parables, they

perceived that he spake of them. But when they sought to lay hands on him, they

feared the multitude, because they took him for a prophet.” Matt. 21: 45, 46

A cold, calculating, deadly, blind hatred possessed them, causing them to close their

eyes to truth or to sober reasoning, and driving them to the point where they could not

turn back.

AT GETHSEMANE

The fact that the reproaches Christ endured, and the sufferings he experienced, were

predicted in the Old Testament Scriptures, did not lessen the sorrow. Jeremiah spoke of

his heart being "broken" because of the false prophets Jer. 23:9 and could pour out such

heart-rending lamentations when his prophecies were fulfilled (Jer. 9:1; Lam. 1:12), how

much greater was the mental agony of Christ who had to witness:

1. One of the Apostles betray him with a hypocritical kiss of love.

2. The high priest, custodian of Yahweh's truth, pervert the law in order to

condemn him.

3. The people demanding the release of a murderer, instead of the Messiah.

4. His closest friends deny and desert him.

5. The nation he loved commit spiritual suicide, be rejected, punished and

scattered.

6. The humiliation and agony of the stake.

In such circumstances he could obtain strength from one Source only; and to Yahweh

he turned. He prayed, asking that if it be possible, the hour might pass from him. He

did not pray that he might escape death, because he knew that as the Good Shepherd

who must save the sheep, it was impossible for him to do so. His teaching in the past

had emphasised that death was inevitable. He had declared:

"As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so MUST the Son of man

be lifted up; that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal

life" (John 3:14-16).

"Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might

take it again" (John 10:17).

“Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except a corn of wheat fall into the ground and

die, it abideth alone: but if it die, it bringeth forth much fruit.

it He that loveth his life shall lose it; and he that hateth his life in this world

shall keep it unto life eternal;” John 12:24, 25

The Lord realised that there was no other way. He did not pray to escape death, but

that the terrible cup of protracted agony and of long, drawn-out witnessing of the

sadness and sin attendant to the circumstances might be swiftly taken from him; for he

deeply felt, with an intensity we cannot share or appreciate, the failings of those he

came to save (Isa. 53:5-6).

Throughout that sad night and day of sorrow, shame and suffering, his thoughts

were continually for others: for the Apostles (Luke 22: 31-32); for the nation (Matt. 23:37); for

his mother (John 19:27); even of Judas (Ps. 55:12).

So he prayed that the hour might pass from him. The request had nothing to do with

death, but was a petition that he should successfully endure the hour of darkness and

evil that would engulf him, so it might come to an end and pass from him. The words

in the Greek translated "might pass from" (Mk. 14:35) are parerchomai apo. The first word

is compounded of para, signifying "beside" and erchomai, to "come or go." Thus it can

signify "to go from beside one." If it is "beside" one, it is not avoided by that

individual. The second word signifies "away from," and this again suggests the close

proximity of the "hour."

If Christ failed, however, the hour of darkness would not pass from him, but would

remain with him. The forces of evil would triumph, and he would remain in the grave.

“Now is my soul troubled; and what shall I say? Father, save me from this

hour? But it was for this very purpose that I have come to this hour” (that I

might undergo it Amplified Bible) . . .

“Now hath my soul been troubled, and what? shall I say—Father, save me from

this hour? —but because of this I came to this hour;” YLT

"And My soul is troubled, and what may I say? Father, save Me out of this

hour? But on this account I came to this hour. Father, glorify Your name. Then

a voice came out of the heaven: I both glorified it, and again I will glorify it.”

Interlinear N.T.

“And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me. This he said,

signifying what death he should die" (John 12:24-25, 27, 32-33).

The prayer, itself, is made up of two requests, recorded in Matt. 26:39 and Mark 14:36. At

first sight, it would appear as though these two passages are repeating the same

petition, but a careful consideration of the Greek reveals significant differences.

In no instance did the Lord pray that he might escape death. His requests were that:

1. With the Father's help he might successfully complete his mission;

2. If it pleased the Father, his sufferings might be cut short.

Paul taught that his requests were granted. He wrote:

"When he (Jesus) had offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying

and tears unto Him that was able to save him from death, he was heard in that

he feared" (Heb. 5:7).

The preposition "from" is ek in Greek, and signifies "out of," and not "from." Jesus

was saved "out of" death, in that he was resurrected, but he did not escape death. His

second petition was also granted for his sufferings were cut short. When it was

reported to Pilate that Jesus was already dead, "Pilate marvelled" that the end had

come so quickly (Mark 15:44).

Thus Jesus was granted the two petitions for which he prayed. HPM (condensed from

“The Story Of The Bible”. vol. 11-12 1967-69).

THE HEBREW TRIAL

Jesus was brought before Annas and then before Caiaphas during the night; at sunrise

there was a meeting of the Sanhedrin, the law strictly forbad a night trial. Capital trials

are commenced only in the daytime, and must be concluded during the day if there is a

sentence of acquittal, but must be postponed to a second day if there is a

condemnation. And for this reason capital trials are not held on the day before a

Sabbath or a feast day.”

“It is evident from these sentences how far the law was over-ridden by the rulers.

The night enquiry, the day of the trial, the non-postponement of sentence were all

violations of the law.” The Christadelphian 1936 page 62.

The difficulty of the judges is to be seen in that they “sought for false witnesses.” To

seek for witnesses at all was “scandalous indecorum”; their duty was to act as counsel

for the accused. But for men who were rulers in a Theocracy to put false witnesses,

whom they had procured, on oath before God was surely one of the strangest

spectacles ever seen in a court of law. The form of adjuration of the witnesses included

the sentence: “In this trial for life, if thou sinnest, the blood of the accused, and the

blood of his seed to the end of time, shall be imputed unto thee.”

Even this abominable illegality on the part of the judges failed. The accused

made no answer; he refused assent to such a process.* But for some reason or other the

witnesses did not agree. What did the law now require? The answer is: “The least

discordance between the evidence of the witnesses was held to destroy its value.”

The law demanded:

"One witness shall not rise up against a man for any iniquity, or for any sin, in

any sin that he sinneth: at the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three

witnesses, shall the matter be established" (Deut. 19:15).

* For a fuller examination of the trials, Jewish and Roman see article page 43

JESUS BEFORE CAIAPHAS

(Matt. 26:59-66; Mark 14:55-64; John 18:24).

Caiaphas had failed to extort a reply from the Lord, but he had in his possession a

secret that he was convinced would place Jesus in his power. It was one that had been

disclosed to him by Judas Iscariot. Judas had attended an emergency council called by

the chief priests and scribes, at which they had planned how they might destroy Jesus.

After every idea had proved abortive, Judas had revealed this secret. It caused

jubilation among the conspirators, and they planned to take Jesus if Judas would

arrange to inform them when the Lord would be on his own. Luke, alone, records the

circumstances. He wrote:

“And he " (Judas) promised, and sought opportunity to betray him unto them in

the absence of the multitude" (Lk. 22:6). “And they were glad, and covenanted to

give him money” Lk 22:5

This statement, as it appears in the Authorised Version, reads strangely, because Judas,

at an earlier meeting with the Jewish leaders, already had agreed to betray the Lord,

and was in secret communication with them.

The word "promised," however, is translated from the Greek exo-mologeo, and should

be rendered "confessed," as it is elsewhere (see Acts 19:18; Rom. 14:11; 15:9; Phil. 2:11, etc.); and the

word "betray" signifies "to deliver him up," and not merely to verbally betray him.

So what Luke recorded was that Judas "confessed" something to the priests, and then

agreed "to deliver Jesus up" when the opportunity presented itself to do so "in the

absence of the multitude."

Luke also states that the priests "were glad" at the attitude adopted by Judas, and

doubtless also at the information he was prepared to give them.

What did Judas confess to the priests that caused them to rejoice, and to feel that once

they arrested Jesus they would be able to successfully charge him with an indictable

offence?

It was a secret that Judas possessed along with the other Apostles. When Jesus was in

Galilee, he had asked the Apostles as to whom they considered him to be, and Peter

had declared:

"Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God!"

That was a bold declaration, and the evidence suggests that Peter used the Divine name

on that occasion: "Thou art the Son of the living Yahweh!" It was undoubtedly the

truth; but, as Jesus warned, it was not a doctrine to be broadcast until the resurrection

of the Lord would demonstrate its veracity beyond all doubt. Meanwhile to proclaim

such would be considered blasphemous, and likely to incur a charge of blasphemy with

its penalty of death by stoning. Jews freely acknowledged that the title "a son of

Elohim" could apply to outstanding men in Israel, but not "the son of the living

Yahweh!"

The high priest now determined that he would compel the Lord to do so by

using the oath of adjuration to extort a confession from the Lord, which also was quite

irregular and illegal. He had Jesus in his power, and was not going to let him go.

“But Jesus held his peace. And the high priest answered and said unto him, I

adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us whether thou be the Christ, the

Son of God.” Mt 26:63

One Bible puts it like this:

“But YAHSHUA held his peace. And the high priest said unto him, I adjure

thee by the living YAHWEH, that thou tell us whether thou art the Messiah, the

Son of YAHWEH”. (Hebrew Bible)

The Lords answer would have been quite sufficient in itself to earn him the sentence of

death, but Jesus solemnly added two assertions about himself which were considered

no less blasphemous in the ears of his judges:

“Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter

shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in

the clouds of heaven.” Mt 26:64

Jesus declared three things:

1. He was the Son of Yahweh;

2. He would ascend to heaven to sit at the right hand of Yahweh;

3. He would return to reign on earth as Yahweh's representative.

Caiaphas dramatically tore his robes, and turning to the assembled judges, cried:

"He has uttered blasphemy! Why do we still need witnesses? You have heard his

blasphemy! What is your judgment?"

The members of the Sanhedrin, hating Jesus for all he stood for, and for the scathing

public indictment he had poured out upon them, in one terrible shout for vengeance

and for blood, answered:

"He is guilty of death!"

Jesus a manacled, undignified prisoner, facing an unjust judge who had previously

declared his intention of putting the Lord to death whether he was innocent or guilty

(John 11:49-50), could thus compare his present state of humiliation with the

wonderful glory that awaited him when he ascended into heaven to appear before the

Judge of all (Daniel 7:13), and later to return to himself judge on Yahweh's behalf

(Matt. 16:27).

It was an answer of defiance. The Lord declared that he would rise triumphant

from the death to which they would consign him, to meet his chief adversary,

Caiaphas, at a time when he would act the part of judge; for "son of man" is the

Messiah's title as judge (John 5:27). As a Sadducee, Caiaphas did not believe in the

resurrection, so that Jesus was now virtually flinging this doctrine in his face, and

proclaiming to all and sundry (and the Pharisees in the Sanhedrin did believe in the

resurrection) that Caiaphas would be raised to die!

In his reply, Jesus had quoted from two significant passages of Scripture, both

of which relate to the Messiah. The first is Psalm 110:1:

"Yahweh said unto my Lord, Sit thou at My right hand, until I make thine

enemies thy footstool."

The second is Daniel 7:13:

"One like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven."

Drawing from these two passages of Scripture, the Lord proclaimed his conviction in

his ultimate triumph no matter what they might do to him. But how could he claim that

Caiaphas will "see" these two Messianic prophecies fulfilled in him?

The word "see" is a translation of the Greek word opsomai, and signifies not so

much the action of personally seeing, as of truly comprehending and knowing.

Moreover, the verb is in the future, passive tense, indicating something that would take

place in the future without the help of the one viewing it! It suggests that those to

whom the Lord spake would be helpless, passive observers of the fulfilment of these

prophecies in him.

JESUS' ANSWER CONSIDERED

The first prophecy came to pass after the Lord ascended into heaven; the second one

will be fulfilled at his second coming.

After the Lord had been raised from the dead, he told his disciples that "all power" had

been given unto him, both in heaven and in earth (Matt. 28:18). They shortly afterwards

experienced the effect of that power. The holy spirit was given unto them, and through

their preaching Ecclesias were established in Palestine and beyond, throughout the

Roman Empire.

In this, the Sanhedrin saw evidences of the heavenly power of the one they

thought they had put to death for ever. They witnessed miracles (cp Acts 5:23-29), so much

so, that one wise counsellor in their midst urged that persecution against the

‘Christians’ should cease, lest the Jews find themselves fighting against God (vv. 34-39).

Though Caiaphas and his fellows on the Sanhedrin could not see the Lord Jesus

seated at the right hand of power, they could perceive the influence that was emanating

from that source (Acts 7:56). Later, in A.D.70, they felt the Lord's power more

directly, for then he allowed the Roman armies to pour over the borders of the land,

and lay Judah in the dust.

Caiaphas will also witness the Lord in glory when he comes the second time,

and is seen in company with his angels, and ultimately, with the glorified saints. On an

earlier occasion, Jesus had declared that many of those who knowingly rejected him at

that time would be raised to judgment in the future age (Luke 13:28-29). Caiaphas will

be among their number.

He will witness the glory of the manacled prisoner that stood before him when

power was in his hands. His judgment and rejection in that day will be an object lesson

to all who heed it that the teaching and authority of Yahweh cannot be spurned with

impunity. The rejected, in that age, will by their very rejection, reveal unto the world at

large, the value of accepting the teaching and decrees of the Son of Man who will have

returned to rule over the nations. (The credit for much of this article goes to bro. H.P.M.)

Note! for a fuller explanation of both the Jewish and Roman trials and the kingly understanding and demeanour that the Lord manifested see article by bro. J Carter page 43.

THE REBELLION IN A.D. 70

The truth was preached to the nation by the apostles:

“And with many other words did he, (Peter) testify and exhort, saying, Save

yourselves from this untoward generation.” Acts 2:40

‘Untoward’, skolios means warped, crooked, perverse. Phil 2:15, they had wanted to take

the kingdom under their own terms, however Yahweh had stated that the Roman

armies were to be brought down by the prince, Messiah the Prince nahgid, or prince

royal: (see page 41 “Exposition Of Daniel”).

“after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself:

and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the

sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the

war desolations are determined.” Dan. 9:26

The Roman governor Festus succeeded Felix Acts 24:27. In A.D. 64 Gesius Florus became

the Roman governor. “Who by the barbarity of his government forces the Jews into the

war.” (Josephus).

“There was no relief from the increasingly heavy yoke of Roman oppression.

These sufferings were interpreted by some as the Hevle ha-Mashiah, the birth

pangs of the Messiah, whose coming they sought to hasten by the overthrow of the

wicked kingdom of Rome. The Romans, naturally seeing in all this a rebellion

against their rule, put down these Messianic-inspired risings with a heavy hand.

Armed revolt did not, however, flare up until 66, when the exactions and financial

maladministration of the procurators, the last of whom, Gessius Florus, was the

most venal and unscrupulous, occasioned yet greater distress and led to a general

uprising in Jerusalem and to the expulsion of the Roman garrison. In order to

suppress the revolt, the legate of Syria, G. Cestius Gallus, marched into Palestine

at the head of a large force. However, inexplicably withdrawing from under the

walls of Jerusalem,* he was overwhelmed during his retreat on the classical

battleground at the pass of Beth Horon. This remarkable success seemed almost

to presage the dawn of Messianic days. A revolutionary government was set up in

Jerusalem and assumed control of the administration of the entire country.

Bearing symbols of redemption, finely minted coins were issued, including, for the

first time, a silver currency. The country was divided into districts and organized

for defence.” “The Jewish People Wurmbrand & Roth.

* “Cestius was not conscious either how the besieged despaired of success, nor

how courageous the people were for him; and so he recalled his soldiers from the

place, and by despairing of any expectation of taking it, without having received

any disgrace, he retired from the city, without any reason in the world.” Josephus

“After this calamity had befallen Cestius, many of the most eminent of the Jews

swam away from the city, as from a ship when it was going to sink”; Josephus

Jesus warned of the sign of this siege by Cestius:

“And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the

desolation thereof is nigh. Then let them which are in Judaea flee to the

mountains; and let them which are in the midst of it depart out; and let not them

that are in the countries enter thereinto.” Luke 21:20-21

When later Titus invested the city no one got out, the faithful had left Judea by then;

some historians state that they went to Pella in the hills.

When the rebellion had cleared the land the Sadducee party would most likely have

considered themselves in control of the world (Kosmos); in A.D. 67 General

Vespasian and his son Titus commence invasion of Galilee, which had been highly

defended. On death of emperor in A.D. 69, Vespasian was declared emperor by his

soldiers and sailed for Rome leaving Titus to conduct the war.

The destruction of the state did not end the same rebellious attitude and desire for

world domination, and further false Messiah’s arose among the Jews:

A. D. 70 to 1842. Moses wrote of the last days of Judah’s commonwealth “For I know that after my

death ye will utterly corrupt yourselves, and turn aside from the way which I have

commanded you; and evil will befall you in the latter days; because ye will do evil in

the sight of Yahweh, to provoke him to anger through the work of your hands.” Deut.

31:29

“After the Roman, armies were withdrawn from Jerusalem, many of the Jews

returned to dwell in the ruined city, though the Roman emperor, indignant at the

late rebellion, had placed a garrison of 800 troops on Mount Zion, in order to

prevent any attempt to rebuild the sacred capital. A portion of the country was yet,

indeed, unscathed by the flames of war; the towns on the coast, submitting to the

conqueror, escaped the horrors of a siege and the penalties of rebellion, while the

provinces beyond Jordan enjoyed tranquillity under the rule of the conquerors.

But the Jews were discontented and rebellious under the yoke of Rome;

they still fondly believed that an earthly Messiah was shortly to arise, to free

them from bondage, and to give them the dominion of the whole earth. They

accordingly listened to the tales of every impostor, and were easily seduced

into rebellion by vain hopes of national glory, that were never realized. Hence

their continual insurrections, which exposed them still farther to the

vengeance of the conquerors, and accelerated the crisis of their fate, when

they were to be driven altogether from their own land, and dispersed over the

face of the earth.

In the course of these commotions great cruelties were committed; but in the

end, the Jews were everywhere borne down by the discipline of the Roman

legions, and paid the penalty of their rebellion with their lives”. ‘History of

Palestine’ Kitto p352.

Brother Roberts speaking of the Jewish rebellion, has words of warning and

exhortation for us in these last days. We would do well to take heed!

“Paul says, “If some of the branches be broken off and thou, being a wild olive

tree, were GRAFTED IN AMONG THEM and with them, partakest of the root and

fatness of the olive tree, boast not against the branches. But if thou boast, thou

bearest not the root BUT THE ROOT THEE. Thou wilt say then, ‘The branches were

broken off that I might be grafted in.’ Well; because of unbelief, they were broken

off, and thou standest by faith. Be not high-minded BUT FEAR. For if God spared

not the natural branches, take heed lest He spare not thee. . . . continue in His

goodness, otherwise, THOU ALSO SHALT BE OUT OFF.”—(Rom. 11:17–22.) From

this it follows, that we are not in a scriptural or acceptable attitude before God

unless we recognise that we Gentile believers of the gospel have only become

conditional fellow-heirs with the approved in Israel, and that apart from a deeply

humble and eager observance of the conditions, we have no hope at all. The

observance of those conditions is called “continuing in His goodness,” because the

bestowal of the goodness is predicated upon our continuance in the conditions or

in the rendering of that which he requires. It was because Israel had long ceased to

render that which He required, that they were cut off.” The Christadelphian 1879


This article is an Appendix from the Companion Bible. The Christadelphian magazine stocked copies of that Bible when it was issued in 1910 with the following provisos from brother C.C. Walker : “It is, of course, not to be supposed that we commit ourselves to every statement made in the Appendix or notes” He emphasised, “We did not, of course, wish our commendation to extend to the fables found here and there in the Appendix and notes; prove all things hold fast that which is good.”

THE TEMPTATIONS IN MATTHEW AND LUKE.

I T is well known that the ordeal of the temptations in Matthew is not the same as in

Luke. An examination of both accounts, giving due weight to the words and

expressions used, will explain all the differences, and show that both Gospels are

absolutely correct; while the differences are caused by the three temptations being

repeated by the ‘devil’ in a different order thus making 6 instead of three.

Mark and Luke agree in stating that the temptations continued all the 40 days

(Mark 1: 13; Luke 4: 2). They are described as follows:-

1). Luke 4: 3, 4 "the devil (ho diabolos) said to him, "speak to this stone (to litho

touto) that it become a loaf (artos).

This appears to be the first temptation: and there is no reason whatever why it

should not have been repeated in another form; for it is no where stated that

there was three and only three temptations.

2). Luke 4: 5-8.) "and the devil conducting (anagagon) him showed to him all the

kingdoms of the habitable world or land (oikoumene), in a moment of time."

Nothing is said about "an exceeding high mountain".

The ‘devil’ claims to possess the right to the kingdoms of the world, and the

Lord does not dispute it. The ‘satan’ says: "to thee will I give this authority

(exousia) and all their glory, for to me it has been delivered, and to come so to

whomsoever I wish I give it. Therefore if thou wilt worship before me all shall

be thine…”.

Nothing is said here about "falling down", as in Matthew. Here, only

"authority" is offered; for all the critical Greek texts read "pasa" "not "panta".

The Lord it did not say, "get thee hence" as in Matthew 4: 10 but "get thee

behind me", which was a very different thing. The ‘satan’ did not depart then,

any more than Peter did when the same was said to him. (Matt. 16: 23).

3). "And he conducted (egagen) him to Jerusalem, and set him up on the wing (or

battlement) of the temple and said to him, "if thou art the son of God, cast

thyself down hence, for it is written that to his angels he will give charge

concerning thee, to keep thee (tou diaphulaxai)".

There is nothing said about these "keeping thee" in Matthew, moreover it is

stated that having finished every form of temptation, "he departed from him for

a season".

Note that the devil “departed "(apeste) of his own accord in Luke 4: 13, while

in Matthew The Lord summarily dismisses him, and commands him to be gone

(Matthew 4: 10).

4). (Matthew 4: 3, 4.). After the "season", referred to in Luke 4: 13, and on

another occasion therefore, "he who was tempting him (ho peirazon), having

come (proselthon), said, "if thou art the son of God, say that these stones

become loaves (artoi)". Not "this stone", or "a loaf" (artos), as in Luke 4: 3.

Moreover he is not plainly called "the devil", as in Luke 4: 3, but is spoken of

as the one who had already been named as tempting him (ho peirazon) and as

"having come" (proselthon): not as simply speaking as being then present.

5). (Matthew 4: 5-7.) "Then (tote)" in strict succession to the preceding temptation

of the "stones" and the "loaves" “Then the devil taketh (paralambanei), him

unto the Holy City, and setteth him upon the wings or battlement of the

temple”.

Nothing is said here about the angels being charged to "keep" him as in Luke 4:

10) nor is there any reason why any of these three forms of temptation should

not have been repeated, under other circumstances and conditions.

6). (Matthew 4: 8-10.) Here it is plainly stated that the second temptation (Luke 4:

5-8) was repeated: for "again the devil taketh him into an exceedingly high

mountain and sheweth to him all the kingdoms of the world,” kosmos not

oikoumene, as in Luke 4: 5 and their glory, and said to him: "all these things,

not "all this authority", as in Luke 4: 6 will I give to thee if, falling down, thou

wilt worship me.”

Here, in this last temptation, the climax is reached. It was direct worship. Nothing is

said in Luke about falling down. Here it is boldly and plainly said, “worship me”. This

was the crisis. There was no departing of the ‘satan's’ own accord here. The moment

had come to end all these temptations by the Lord himself. "Go!” said the Lord

THE TEMPTATIONS IN MATTHEW AND LUKE.

(hupage), “get thee hence, satan…” Then the devil leaveth (ophiesin) him, and behold

Angels came and ministered to him".

This angelic Ministry marked the end. There is no such ministry mentioned at

the end of the third temptation in Luke 4 verse 3-12; for then Satan "departed" of his

own accord, returning (in Matthew 4: 3) after a "a season" Luke 4: 13).

True, the Lord had said "Get thee behind me, Satan" (Luke 4: 8); but he did not,

then, summarily dismiss him nor did the satan depart: he continued with his third

temptation, not departing till after the third had been completed.

We thus conclude that, while there were temptations continuous during the whole of

the 40 days (Mark 1: 13, Luke 4: 2) they culminated in six direct assaults on the son of

Man, in three different forms:

“For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the

pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world.” 1 John 2: 16

Each form being repeated on two separate occasions, and under different

circumstances, but not in the same order.

This accords with all the variations of the words used, explains the different order of

events in the two Gospels, and satisfies all the conditions demanded by the sacred text.

The two different orders in Matthew and Luke do not arise from a "mistake" in one or

the other, so that one may be considered correct any other incorrect; they arise from the

punctilious accuracy of the divine record in describing the true and correct order in

which the satan varied the 6 temptations; for which variation he alone, and neither of

the gospel writers is responsible.


This article examines from the legal standpoint of a trained lawyer, the two trials of the Lord. For Jesus was tried by the authorities of Israel and by the representative of Rome. These two codes of laws under which Jesus was tried are recognised to have been the most influential in the world. It shows Jesus with the conduct of a king and reveals his self-control and his mastery of the situation. He who knew the law, “Yahweh is well pleased for his righteousness' sake; he will magnify the law, and make it honourable.” Isa. 42:21 In their determination to have him put to death the Sadducees manipulated their own system and also Pilate found himself threatened of being accused of treason against the Emperor, if he did not go against his own system and crucify Jesus.

THE TRIAL OF JESUS CHRIST

(1) THE HEBREW TRIAL

Brother J. Carter

A LL are familiar with the accounts of the trial of Jesus Christ, as recorded in the

four Gospels. Certain legal forms were gone through, and judicial sentences were

pronounced. Jesus did not die as the victim of the violence of a mob acting without

regard to the interests of law and order and judicial authority. In the words of the

prophet, “He was taken from prison and from judgment.”

The trial was conducted under two of the most remarkable systems of

jurisprudence the world has known. Jesus was tried by the authorities of Israel and by

the representative of Rome. His trial therefore has a unique interest from that point

alone. But when we take account of the peculiar place claimed for Jesus in the Gospels

in his relation to the purpose of God, the importance of his trial places it in a position

apart from any other famous trial that has attracted the interest of men.

A legal training with knowledge of proceedings under different systems of legal

process is desirable in one who undertakes an investigation into the trial; and it is not

surprising to find that men with the necessary equipment have been drawn to the study

of the subject. A “legal monograph” entitled The Trial of Jesus Christ was written by

A. Taylor Innes, Advocate, and published by T. and T. Clark, in 1899. The book is a

recognised authority, and its conclusions are endorsed by Lord Shaw, in his smaller

book with the same title, published by Newnes. The following notes are based on

Innes’ book.

The two codes of laws under which Jesus was tried are recognised to have been

the most influential in the world. “By common consent of lawyers the most august of

all jurisprudences is that of ancient Rome.” “The written reason of the Roman Law has

been silently or studiously transfused into all our modern life, and lawyers of every

nation look back with filial reverence to the great jurisconsults of the great age of the

Imperial Republic.” “But perhaps the most peculiar of all jurisprudence in the eyes of

Christendom, the most venerable as well as peculiar, is that of the Jewish

Commonwealth.”

ISRAEL’S LAW GIVEN BY MOSES

Israel’s law was the outcome of their religion; and the rules which governed

their proceedings in cases of capital charges were developments which did not spring

from administrative wisdom and “a tendency to righteousness” such as was exhibited

by the Romans in their legal systems, but which had their source in divine regulations

incorporated in their constitution given them by Moses—“institutions pervaded by a

deep sentiment of justice and law.”

There were then two phases of the trial of Jesus—Jewish and Roman. Each

system had its own forms; were they observed? What were the charges preferred?

Were they the same in each?—for what may be a capital charge under one law is not

necessarily so under another. Was the decision in keeping with the law, and reached

with a due regard for its safeguards for giving proper effect to legal decisions?

Moses said, “Thou shalt do no unrighteousness in judgment.” This

sentiment was developed in the traditions of the elders, and these are incorporated in

The Talmud, which has been called “an encyclopaedia of all law.” The Mishna, a

portion of the Talmud, is almost entirely devoted to legal matters, and it has been

accepted without hesitation that it includes the code of criminal law in existence in the

days of Christ. It contains strong precautions against legal injustice, and inculcates

caution in legal action.

In capital cases extraordinary precautions were particularly enjoined. Four rules

governed the regulations which are laid down in the Mishna:

THE TRIAL OF CHRIST

1. Strictness in the accusation:

2. Publicity in the discussion:

3. Full freedom granted to the accused, and:

4. Assurance against all dangers or errors of testimony.”

There was a horror of shedding innocent blood, and “rule after rule was laid down in

successive lines of circumvallation, and presumptions in favour of the accused were

accumulated, until a false conviction became almost impossible.”

These general statements show how utter and complete must have been the disregard

of rules on the part of the judges of Israel when Jesus stood before them. This is

absolutely demonstrated in the review of particular laws.

Arrest is the usual first step in modern trials, but while the arrest of Jesus was

performed by the order of the highest authority, it was contrary to Jewish law unless

escape or resistance was feared. The powers which Jesus had displayed may have

suggested the possibility of dangerous resistance to authority being employed, and that

may have been regarded as a sufficient warrant for securing him. But there was neither

warrant nor excuse for the next step. The trial should not have begun before morning.

This rule was observed in the case of Peter and John, who were “put in ward until the

next day, because it was now eventide.”

Jesus was examined by night, and also subjected to a preliminary investigation

before the calling of any witnesses. This was “wholly illegal.” Under Hebrew law it

was “the right of the accused to be free from all personal or private investigation until

he was brought for trial before his congregated brethren.” A trial proceeded at the

instigation of witnesses, and their deposition was the first step in the proceedings.

The answer of Jesus, when asked of his teaching and disciples, is an appeal to

these legal requirements: “I have spoken openly in the temple whither the Jews

always resort; and in secret have I said nothing. Why askest thou me? Ask them that

heard me.” This answer was “in every word the voice of pure Hebrew justice . . .

recalling an unjust judge to the first duty of his great office.”

This rebuke of Jesus evoked a further violation of the law. An officer struck

him. “The reply of Jesus is exceedingly striking. In it he again took his stand on the

platform of the legal rights of the Hebrews . . . ‘If I have spoken evil, bear witness of

the evil; but if well, why smitest thou me?’” These words are a further appeal to the

same principle of the law, “by which witnesses took upon themselves the whole burden

and responsibility, and especially the whole initiative of every accusation.” Then, after

conviction, the witnesses had the further responsibility of throwing the first stone. The

protest of Jesus was effectual in that witnesses were produced; but they were

“suborned”—there was not the initiative on their part that the law required, and their

presence only gave the semblance of form to the proceedings.

Jesus was brought before Annas and then before Caiaphas during the night. At

sunrise there was a meeting of the Sanhedrin. Now the law strictly forbad a night trial.

The Mishna gives details of contrast between capital trials and money questions. After

particulars concerning the number of judges, review of trials, ability to quash sentence

of condemnation but not of acquittal, it says: “Money trials are commenced only in the

daytime, but may be concluded after nightfall; capital trials are commenced only in the

daytime, and must be concluded during the day. The former may be concluded by

acquittal or condemnation on the day on which they have begun: the latter may be

concluded on that day if there is a sentence of acquittal but must be postponed to a

second day if there is a condemnation. And for this reason capital trials are not held

on the day before a Sabbath or a feast day.”

It is evident from these sentences how far the law was over-ridden by the rulers.

The night enquiry, the day of the trial, the non-postponement of sentence were all

violations of the law.

The injustice of the rulers is further apparent from a clause which required that every

facility be offered right up to the moment of the execution of the sentence for

witnesses to come forward on behalf of the accused. The trial of Jesus, begun and

practically concluded during the one night, gave no opportunity for witnesses for the

defence to be called. But added to this, and aggravating the offence, the accused was

no ordinary prisoner.

The claims which he made, and the works he did, alike demanded that every

precaution be taken to sift the claims by evidence. Innes says: “And that of all criminal

cases, a trial in which a son of Israel, acknowledged to be mighty in deed and in word

before all the people, was to be judged for his life—that such a trial should be begun

and finished and sentence formally pronounced between midnight and morning, was a

violence done to the forms and rules of Hebrew law as well as to the principles of

justice.”

The rulers were not ignorant of methods. They were trained in all the details of

procedure, and therefore did not dispense with forms; but they violated every principle

while maintaining the appearance and outward form of legality. No wonder that Jesus

by the answer that he gave—“Bear witness if I have done wrong”—refused to take

part.

The difficulty of the judges is to be seen in that they “sought for false

witnesses.” To seek for witnesses at all was “scandalous indecorum”; their duty was to

act as counsel for the accused. But for men who were rulers in a Theocracy to put false

witnesses, whom they had procured, on oath before God was surely one of the

strangest spectacles ever seen in a court of law. The form of adjuration of the witnesses

included the sentence: “In this trial for life, if thou sinnest, the blood of the accused,

and the blood of his seed to the end of time, shall be imputed unto thee.”

Even this abominable illegality on the part of the judges failed. The accused

made no answer; he refused assent to such a process. But for some reason or other the

witnesses did not agree. What did the law now require? The answer is: “The least

discordance between the evidence of the witnesses was held to destroy its value.”

Up to this point in the trial, no formal charge had been made. This should have been

formulated at the beginning by the leading witnesses. But when, belatedly, the

witnesses are brought in, their charge fails through non-agreement. The procedure in

connection with witnesses is illustrated in the Old Testament in the case of Naboth.

What now is the duty of the judges? “The rule of the law in such a case was clear that

the accused must be at once liberated.”

The plight of the judges, determined to put Jesus to death, is desperate. They

now attempt a further illegality—the cross-examination of the prisoner. But Jesus held

his peace, and answered nothing. Well indeed might he do so. Had the formulation of a

charge been successful, the next thing was to call witnesses on behalf of the accused;

but the witnesses had failed to make good a case against him, and so an attempt is

made to extort something from him which might be used against him.

What was it in the charges made by the witnesses, confused and conflicting

though they were, that had any relation to a capital charge? It is clear there was an

attempt to get a charge of blasphemy—the doubtful justice of which is evident in a

Gentile state, but which was high treason in a Theocratic form of government, for any

attempt to overthrow any appointed institutions was treason against God. What an

anomalous position is here. Evil judges trying to indict the One who kept God’s law

perfectly, of violation of law and therefore of treason against God.

But desperate men, moved by great hate and fear, are ready to jump all legal

restraints. They have allowed the prisoner to be mocked, blindfolded, and struck by

their servants in the interval between the investigation before Caiaphas and the formal

trial after sunrise. Now they demand of him: “Tell us if thou art the Christ.”

Did they want to know? For three years he had made his claims, and presented

his credentials. Their duty before this time had been to examine the claims and to have

arrived at some decision concerning both John, his forerunner, and himself, in

harmony with the obligations which the law made upon them. Now he says: “If I tell

ye, ye will not believe: and if I ask you, ye will not answer.” No indeed! had they not

said, “we cannot tell”, when asked of John’s baptism. What answer could he expect if

he asked them; what judicial consideration if he put his claims again before them?

But their question had now touched a point of contact with his work. He

therefore witnesses to his Messiahship: “Hereafter ye shall see the Son of Man sitting

on the right hand of power and coming in the clouds of heaven.”

The High Priest seizes the chance; and putting Christ on oath asks if he was the Christ,

the Son of the Blessed. “I am,” Jesus replied. Now Israel’s law required that if one

heard blasphemy uttered he should rend his clothes. At once, as the lips of Jesus

uttered the fateful acknowledgment, the High Priest rent his clothes, and demanded of

his fellow-conspirators if further witnesses were needed: “What think ye?” “He is

worthy of death,” was the ready answer.

Two further points emerge here. Jewish law did not condemn on a man’s own

confession. Says Maimonides, “Our law condemns no one to death on his own

confession.” Again, in the words of Bartenora, “It is a fundamental principle with us

that no one can damage himself by what he says in judgment.” Innes therefore writes:

“Putting the question to the accused and founding a condemnation on his answer, was,

therefore, the last violation of formal justice.”

But what of the words of Jesus? Was it blasphemy to claim to be the Son of God and

the Messiah of Israel? Yes, if the claim were not true. But what if the words were true?

Here was a claim that demanded their most careful judicial enquiry, and its falsehood

proved. The claim itself was not a crime; its falsehood would constitute it one.

Their duty as judges under the Institutes of God’s kingdom was to weigh the

evidence for the truth or otherwise of the claims of Jesus. They never attempted to

discharge the duty, but by bringing the trial to a close they showed that they were

parties to a preconcerted plan in the execution of which they were prepared to violate

every procedure which the law demanded.

We conclude this review of the Hebrew trial by quoting the words of Innes:

“Our conclusion on the question of Hebrew law must be this: that a process begun,

continued, and apparently finished, in the course of the night; commencing with

witnesses against the accused who were sought for by the judges, but whose evidence

was not sustained even by them; continued by interrogatories which Hebrew law does

not sanction, and ending with a demand for a confession which its doctors expressly

forbid; all followed twenty-four hours too soon, by a sentence which described a claim

to be the fulfiller of the hopes of Israel as blasphemy—that such a process had neither

the form nor the fairness of a judicial trial.” At the same time “it was a real and

important transaction . . . their condemnation truly expressed the rejection of his claim

by the nation itself.”

(2) THE ROMAN TRIAL

T HE second phase of the trial of Jesus is a reminder that Rome had conquered

Israel, and while allowing a measure of freedom, yet reserved for itself the

decision in all matters of life and death. Annas and one of his sons had indeed

stretched their powers to the carrying out of the capital sentence, but Annas had been

removed from office for it. Jesus, therefore, after being sentenced by the Sanhedrin,

must be taken before the Roman authorities.

“Crucified under Pontius Pilate” is a phrase that for centuries has linked the

name of the Roman governor with the death of Jesus. “He was procurator, deputy, or

attorney of Tiberius in the province . . . with civil, criminal, and military jurisdiction . .

. directly responsible to his great Master at Rome.”

The Emperor was the representative of Rome, and, while nominally a private

nobleman or citizen, had yet gathered into his own hands all the offices and privileges

that had been distributed before in the hands of the magistrates and representatives. He

was the leader of the legislative house, chief of the national religion, guardian of the

people, and “supreme magistrate over the whole Roman world.” Pilate was his

representative in Syria.

It is not known where Pilate held his court. The Bema, or Tribunal, was

movable, and could be set up in the open space of any Praetorium. It seems hardly

probable that Pilate would sit to transact business during the feast, although Innes says

that “he sat to transact business and administer justice as usual.” It is quite possible

that the Jewish rulers had made special request for an unusual holding of the court

during the festival because of the urgency of this case. However, Pilate’s tribunal was

set up in the judgment hall. During the sacred week the Jews would not enter that

chamber with its altars and idolatrous associations, so Pilate overcame the difficulty by

meeting them at the gate.

If they were hoping for a formal confirmation of their own sentence the first

words of Pilate, “What accusation bring ye against this man,” indicating that he was

having at least a formal trial, would disabuse their minds. “We recognise instantly the

spontaneous voice of Roman justice. It was no doubt meant to suggest his own

authority and power of review. . . . But it was before everything else the instinctive

utterance of a judge, and it at once recalls that memorable dictum of Pilate’s

successor in the same seat: ‘It is not the manner of the Romans to deliver any man to

die, until that he which is accused have the accusers face to face, and have licence to

answer for himself concerning the crime laid against him.’”

To this demand for the accusation, the chief priests offered the “insolent

evasion,” “If he were not a malefactor we would not have delivered him unto thee.”

Such an avoidance of the manifest requirements of justice was met by Pilate in the

reply, “Take ye him, and judge him according to your law.” To this they made answer

that it was not in their power to deal with such a case—it was a capital charge: “It is

not permissible for us to put any man to death.”

Here we are brought face to face with “the question of conflict of jurisdiction.”

There has been discussion as to the precise extent of the restrictions imposed upon

Israel by Rome, but Innes sums up the position in the words: “The balance of evidence

is very strong that, at this time, all questions of life and death in Judea were by Roman

law and practice reserved for the final decision of the Roman governor. In such cases

the Jews could try the cause, but not sentence the accused. Nor can there be much

doubt that the governor’s final power in these cases was not a merely ministerial right

of endorsement and execution; it was also a power of review, in so far at least as he

chose to exercise it.”

We can well imagine the reluctance on the part of the Jews to admit of any right

of review of any decision they had made, particularly in the case of a religious matter

as the one in question, and the consequent endeavour to get acquiescence with the

decision they had made. “The dialogue already narrated expresses with admirable

terseness the struggle which we should have expected between the efforts of the Jews

to get a mere countersign to their sentence, and the determination of Pilate to assume

his full judicial responsibility, whether of first instance or revision.”

There were cross currents flowing; fear that Pilate would not endorse their

action; need for haste, as delay increased the risk of failure. The conflict of views had

the effect of committing Pilate to a responsible exercise of his office as judge.

Since a charge must be preferred, they therefore said, “We found this man

perverting the nation and forbidding to give tribute to Cæsar, saying that he himself

is Christ a king.” It will be observed that this accusation is in some respects a different

one from that upon which the Sanhedrin had condemned Jesus. While Pilate had the

responsibility of administering their law, he may not have regarded that charge as

sufficiently serious to be treated as a matter of life and death. Hence the attempt to

convict Jesus on counts more serious in the eyes of Rome.

The charges were probably such as had been arranged before. The astute rulers

in planning to put Jesus to death would not forget to arrange some accusation which

had a connection with capital offences, and by which they could obtain legal sanction

to gain their end. There is a certain resemblance of truth in two of the charges they

made: “perverting the nation” might well describe those activities which had secured

a following for Jesus, and which caused a popular expectation of the establishment of

God’s kingdom.

That Jesus had claimed to be the Messiah was undisputed; but he had led no

revolutionary movement; on the contrary he had restrained any exhibition of

enthusiasm in the expectation of his assumption of royal power. In what way is the

crime imputed to him a criminal offence? The Roman State was sovereign, and the

greatest crime possible was an attack upon its majesty and authority. This is the

offence.

Jesus, to the surprise of Pilate, made no reply to the accusations, but with legal

fairness Pilate interviewed the prisoner and asked, “Art thou the king of the Jews?”

Jesus answered by asking, “Sayest thou this of thyself, or did others tell it thee of

me?” which Innes takes to mean “In what sense dost thou use the expression? As a

Roman, or as the Jews use it?” But it is more likely that Jesus is asking if Pilate is

preferring a charge, or merely repeating the Jewish accusation.

Pilate disclaims the personal charge: “Am I a Jew; thine own nation and the

chief priests have delivered thee to me; what hast thou done?” Then Jesus explained

that he would not set up his kingdom as other rulers did with the support of friends and

servants; his power and authority were of God. There was acknowledgment and denial

in the words: denial of the charge as made; acknowledgment of the fact of kingship.

“With judicial tact, the governor lays his finger on the exact point which required to be

brought from negative implication into express statement.” He asked, “Art thou a king

then?” and the prisoner answered, “Thou sayest it; I am a king.” He had made a

similar fateful answer to the High Priest, and he knew that this response would bring

him to the stake. He therefore added, “To this end was I born and to this end came I

into the world that I might bear witness unto the truth.”

“Witness to truth,” however wide its meaning, certainly includes the fact of his

kingship. But he said more; his claims were self-evident to some, however others

might view them. Pilate might be at a loss to understand him, but “he that is of the

truth heareth my voice.” In this way, he witnessed a good confession before Pontius

Pilate.

Was Pilate of the truth? He was not, as his “blank response, half sarcastic, half

despairing, wholly sceptical,” shews. But while he thus said, “What is truth,” at the

same time he recognised that the man before him was not a criminal. He therefore went

out to the people and announced, “I find no crime in him.” This was the verdict. And

as Jesus should have been released when the trial broke down before the ruler of Israel,

so now Pilate should forthwith have liberated the prisoner.

Pilate’s declaration of “No crime” proved to be “the first step in a course of

weakness . . . which beginning with indecision and complaisance, passed through the

phases of alternate bluster and subserviency, persuasion, evasion, protest and

compromise; superstitious dread, conscientious reluctance, cautious duplicity, and

sheer moral cowardice at last; until this Roman remains photographed for ever as the

perfect feature of the unjust judge deciding ‘against his better knowledge, not

deceived.’”

The mention of Galilee in the shouts of the crowd seemed to provide Pilate with

a way out of his dilemma. He sent Jesus to Herod, but “Herod’s declinature was

prudent as well as courteous when we remember the terms of the accusation.” The

charge of treason was an unpleasant subject for trial; Cæsar’s judgment seat was the

place for such, “and the Idumean ‘fox’ may have dreaded the lion’s paw, while willing

to exchange courtesies with the lion’s deputy.”

When Jesus was returned to Pilate the pressure of the accusers was telling upon

Pilate. He has already declared that Jesus was not guilty; he claims the same result of

the interview with Herod; but as a compromise he proposes that Jesus shall be

scourged and then allowed to go. He offers, “to mangle an innocent man with the

savage Roman scourge.” At the same time, according to the custom of releasing a

prisoner at the feast, he also offers to release Jesus. Liberate an innocent man as a

concession to a custom! The demand for Barabbas did not allow it.

But before Pilate takes “the first step in actual guilt” he washes his hands,

declaring his innocence of the blood of this just person. But his position and power do

not allow him thus to remove the stain of guilt. If Jesus is a just person, Pilate’s course,

no matter how difficult, is clear. But instead, Jesus is scourged, insulted and ill-treated

by the soldiery in violation of justice.

Pilate’s concession was his undoing; although he still struggles to save Jesus,

endeavouring to elicit some sympathy for the “despised and rejected” prisoner, whose

visage is now so marred and so unlike a king. “Behold the man.” But instead of

compassion he is met with the demand, increasing in insistence, for the crucifixion of

Jesus. Again the unhappy judge declares the innocence of Jesus: “Take him yourselves

and crucify him: for I find no fault in him.”

“No fault”—and in the minds of Israel’s rulers he is guilty of the greatest of

crimes, of blasphemy. Their feeling overcomes the caution with which they had tried

to obtain sanction according to Roman law for the death of Jesus, and they give

expression to the true reason of their prosecution. “We have a law, and by that law he

ought to die, because he made himself the Son of God.” This charge is in keeping

with the decisions of the Hebrew trial.

Pilate’s perplexity with the prisoner has been evident. The conversation, broken

off at the reference to truth, revealed that the prisoner was no ordinary man. John notes

the effect upon Pilate of this outburst in which the claims of the prisoner are stated. He

was “more afraid.” He again interviews Jesus, asking him, “Whence art thou?” But

from the time when Pilate had failed to act in keeping with his judgment Jesus had

given him no answer. Pilate burst out with “Speakest thou not unto me? Knowest thou

not that I have the power to release thee and power to crucify thee?”

Jesus now breaks silence for his last answer. “Thou wouldst have no power

against me, except it were given thee from above: therefore he that delivered me unto

thee hath the greater sin.” Pilate’s power, although he recognised it not, was of God.

The Jews had some knowledge of this from the scriptures. Their sin was greater in

using power God conferred for unjust ends—to put to death an innocent person in

defiance of God’s laws.

This answer of Jesus reveals his self-control and his mastery of the situation.

For upwards of twelve hours he has been suffering, first mentally in Gethsemane, and

then physically under the brutal treatment of the soldiers and the scourging ordered by

the governor. And now with calm dignity he informs Pilate of the source of the power

which he was wielding, his sin in the misuse of it, and the greater sin of those who had

delivered him up and who were insistently demanding his death. The nobility of the

answer led Pilate to a final effort to save Jesus.

But while Pilate knew that for envy the rulers had delivered up Jesus and while

he hated them and despised them, on their part they had accurately measured Pilate.

They used their last weapon, knowing that it would compel the reluctant governor to

comply with their demands. “If thou let this man go, thou art not Cæsar’s friend;

whoso maketh himself a king speaketh against Cæsar.”

Cæsar had gathered to himself all the offices of the State, and treason against

the State was treason against him. Rome brooked no rival, and to that was added the

personal suspicion of the despot ruling Rome. “It was no anti-climax when the shrewd

Jewish politicians, instead of saying, ‘Whoso maketh himself a king speaketh against

the majesty of the State,’ preferred to say, ‘Whoso maketh himself a king speaketh

against Cæsar.’” The law of treason had been extended to cover libels against the

person of the Emperor.

Now Pilate is himself threatened of being accused of treason against the

Emperor if he did not crucify Jesus. He depended upon the favour of the Emperor, and

his record was not too good. “He who had so long persisted against all other arguments

now succumbed at once before the well chosen words: ‘If thou let this man go, thou

art not Cæsar’s friend.’” He ascended the tribunal to give his verdict. His bitterness

manifests itself as he says, “Shall I crucify your king?” It was an astonishing answer

that came to his ears: “We have no king but Cæsar.” He pronounced sentence.

Was Pilate right in crucifying Jesus? Innes reviews previous discussions on the

question. Discrimination has to be made between judicial and administrative duties. As

an administrator he might be called upon to do some things in the interest of peace. But

in the trial of Jesus, Pilate is before us as a judge dealing with matters of which the

prisoner is accused. Yet at the same time it must be recognised that the prisoner made

claims of far-reaching importance, when he said that “Everyone that is of the truth

heareth my voice.” There is implied that hearing his voice might involve conflict with

the authorities; and so it worked out in history.

Very soon Rome measured its might against the adherents of Jesus, who

accepted his religion and refused to accede to the demands of the State that the

Emperor should be worshipped, and who also refused to disband their societies,

although the State treated them as illegal and therefore membership of them a

punishable offence.

What ought Pilate to have done? As an officer of Rome he had to administer her

laws. If he finds that he cannot conscientiously do so he can resign. This issue Pilate

did not face. He knew that the fundamental principle of the law of Rome was that “the

public law of the Imperial State had the right to permit or forbid the exercise of the

religion of the private man.”

The principle was applied with caution and wisdom as a rule, local worship of

other gods being usually tolerated. Jewish freedom was tolerated racially and not just

in Palestine. Yet it must be recognised that “the Constitutional law of Rome reserved to

the State the right on the one hand to approve and licence, and on the other to repress

and forbid while unlicensed the expression of new religious convictions, the public

existence of a new faith.” In this prerogative was involved the supremacy of the State.

The incompatibility of ‘Christianity’ with Roman public law is evident.

The problem thus presented was doubtless not envisaged by Pilate. “It is clear

indeed that he believed Jesus to be both just and harmless; and so believing he sinned

in corruptly swaying from his first judgment and betrayed the innocent blood.” But

having thus said, Innes adds that had Pilate taken account of the claims of Rome and

the counterclaims of Jesus, and had he sent him to Rome, the end would have been the

same.

Innes sums up; and he arrives at this conclusion: “In both trials the judges were

unjust, and the trial was unfair; yet in both the right issue was substantially raised.

Even the form which that issue took was the same in both. Jesus Christ was arraigned

on a double charge of treason; the treason in the Theocratic court being (constructive)

speaking against God, while in the Imperial court it was a (constructive) speaking

against Cæsar. But under these tortuous traditions of a twofold law the real historical

question was twice over reached and the true claim of the accused was truly made

known. He died because in the ecclesiastical council he claimed to be the Son of God

and the Messiah of Israel, and because before the world-wide tribunal he claimed to

be Christ a King.”

Thus, while the world condemned him, he was innocent of crime, for it is no

crime to make claims that are true. He was the Son of God, the Messiah, a King. The

prince of this world, as he said, came and had nothing in him. The judgment was

given, but it was the world that was judged. J.C. The Christadelphian 1936

awawawawawawawaw This section gives sample quotations from our early brethren, we can see how they considered scripture and placed it above all. The temptation of Christ illustrates the twofold aspect of sin, he was of our sinful nature and in need of covering by his own sacrifice first. Heb. 7:27 However when tempted in all points like unto his brethren Heb. 4:15 he did not transgress the law but answered from his Father’s word .

APPENDIX

SIN

T HE word sin is used in two senses; first, to represent that combination of

principles within us, which in excitation is manifested in passion, evil affections

of the mind, diseases, death and corruption. They are called sin because their

manifestation was permitted as the consequence of transgression. And this is the

second sense of the word; as it is written, ‘sin is the transgression of law.’

Transgression was the effect of the unbridled inworking of humanity; and when the

transgression was complete, or ‘finished,’ that inworking and its result were BOTH

styled sin.

Bro. Thomas Herald of the Kingdom , 1852

ELPIS ISRAEL (BRO. THOMAS).

H UMAN nature, or “sinful flesh”, has three principal channels through which it

displays its waywardness against the law of God. These are expressed by “the

lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life”. All that is in the world

stands related to these points of our nature; and there is no temptation that can be

devised, but what assails it in one, or more, of these three particulars. The world

without is the seducer, which finds in all animal men, unsubdued by the law and

testimony of God, a sympathizing and friendly principle, ready at all times to eat of its

forbidden fruit.

This sinful nature we inherit. It is our misfortune, not our crime, that we possess

it. We are only blameworthy when, being supplied with the power of subduing it, we

permit it to reign over us. This power resides in “the testimony of God” believed; so

that we “are kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation”. This testimony

ought to dwell in us as it dwelt in the Lord Jesus; so that, as with the shield of faith, the

fiery assaults of the world may be quenched by a “thus it is written”, and a “thus saith

the Lord”. Jesus was prepared by the exhaustion of a long fast, for an appeal to the

desire of his flesh for food. Hunger, it is said, will break through stone walls. “He was

hungry.” At this crisis, “the Tempter came to him”.

“Some one “came to him” who was his adversary, and who desired his ruin; or,

at least, acted the part of one on the same principle that the adversary was permitted to

put the fidelity of Job to the proof. The trial of this eminent son of God, was perhaps

recorded as an illustration of the temptation of the Son of God, even Jesus, to whom

“there was none like in the earth, a perfect and upright man, one that feared God, and

eschewed evil”. From his birth to his baptism in the Jordan, he was faultless. But in the

words of Satan concerning Job, “Did Jesus fear God for nought? Had not God made a

hedge about him?” Yes; God was his defence: and “in keeping his testimony there is

great reward”.

But, the adversary calumniated Jesus, in suggesting that his obedience to God

had been prompted by mercenary motives. He “feared”, not simply for what he should

get, but because of his love for his Father’s character as revealed in the divine

testimonies. The adversary affected to disbelieve this, and to suppose that, if God

would just leave him in the position of any other man, he would distrust Him; and eat

of the world’s forbidden fruit, by embracing all it would afford him. Thus, the

adversary may be supposed to have moved the Lord to permit him to put the fidelity of

Jesus to the test. God, therefore, allowed the experiment to be tried; and by His spirit

sent him into the wilderness for the purpose. So the adversary went forth from the

presence of the Lord, and came to him there.”

NAZARETH REVISITED (BRO. ROBERTS.)

T HIS is a little to the south of the spot where John’s baptismal operations are

believed to have been conducted, and would be a fitting locality for the purpose of

Christ’s spirit-enforced seclusion. The purpose was that he might be “tempted of the

devil.” Paul says “he was tempted in all points like as we are, yet without sin” (Heb.

iv. 15). His temptation in the wilderness must, therefore, come into the category of our

experiences. This at once excludes the popular idea that it was the supernatural

personal devil of popular theology that tempted Jesus. No man is ever tempted in this

APPENDIX

way, but always by the incitements of the flesh, either operating spontaneously within,

or presented to us in an objective manner by the suggestions of a person external to

ourselves.

The whole narrative of the temptation shows it was a temptation of the latter

sort—a temptation brought to bear by an external tempter—a person—but not the

popular Satan, who exists only in the Papalised imaginations of such as derive their

theological ideas from inherited tradition, and not from the study of the scriptures. The

Bible devil and the pulpit devil are two different things. The Bible devil, with many

shapes, has a common derivation—the insubordination of flesh and blood to divine

law. This devil exists in his largest form in the present political constitution of things

upon the earth. In detail, he presents himself in our own feelings, and in the persons of

those who, on any pretext whatsoever, would draw us away from divine ways and

thoughts. Who he specifically was in the case of Jesus, we are not informed, and do not

know: but his generic identity is unquestionable.”

WITNESS FOR CHRIST. BRO. C.C. WALKER

T HEN was Jesus led up of the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted of the devil.”

This is the first thing we read of him in Matthew’s gospel after the record of his

baptism. This is very suggestive. It is not enough that he should be proclaimed Son of

God in baptism; he must next be tried. This is the order with all the sons of God, of

whom he is the firstborn and head; and they do well who recognise that upon coming

out of the waters of baptism they must go forth into the wilderness to be tempted of the

devil. “He was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.” “In that he himself

hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succour them that are tempted.” “All that is

in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of

the Father, but is of the world.”

So says the apostle John, and his saying covers the whole ground upon which

human nature is tempted. It was so in Eden of old. The forbidden tree was “good for

food, pleasant to the eyes, and to be desired to make one wise.” Adam and Eve, under

the inspiration of the serpent, failed on all these points, because they were seduced to

disbelieve the word of God. The serpent was “the devil” then, though not of the fabled

order of clerical theology. This is abundantly evident from the allusion of Rev. 20:2 ,

and many other scriptures.

He was the external agent appealing to internal desires in disregard of the

commandment of God given to regulate those desires. He succeeded, and our first

parents were “drawn away of their own lust and enticed”; and lust conceiving, brought

forth sin, and sin being finished brought forth death. Such is the language of the

apostle James. Before the death of Adam and Eve, the angels who had been their

companions ministered against them, driving them out of Paradise, and keeping the

way of the tree of life.

But the second Adam overcame where the first failed. Unlike his prototype, he was

Son of Man; and unlike all other sons of men, he was also Son of God, a son of man

made strong by the Father for the work pre-determined for him to do. He was the “only

begotten” of the Father, full of grace and truth. In what is called the temptation in the

wilderness he was assailed, as the first Adam had been, with reference to “the lust of

the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life”; and, according to the analogy, an

external agent appealed to internal desires.

In the wilderness of Judea hunger prepared the way for “the tempter’s” coming

and suggestion, “If thou be the Son of God, command that these stones be made

bread.” But he answered, “ It is written , Man shall not live by bread alone, but by

every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.” The reference to the manna and

Israel’s murmuring in the wilderness ( Deut. 8:3 ; Ex. 16 .) is very pointed. Unlike

Adam, and unlike Israel, he would not gratify the flesh in overriding the divine law.

Though God “suffered him to hunger,” he believed the word, and endured, and in due

time succour came.

TEMPTATION (BRO COLLYER)

S CRIPTURE tells us that Christ was tempted and tried in all points as we are. That

unquestionably involves suggestions from without, acting on the natural

tendencies of our nature. There is a sense in which it is true that all temptations are

external, for we could not develop as individuals at all apart from our senses which

enable us to see and hear and feel and taste external things. Our whole personality is

built out of this call of the world in which we live and our reaction to it. When the

world suggests possibilities which seem desirable, but which are contrary to the

revealed will of God, we are tempted and tried. If we never saw or heard such

possibilities there would be no temptation. If the possibilities suggested to us did not in

the least degree appeal to us, there would be no temptation.” I.C. The Christadelphian :

1925.

“THE Devil is a bad Power — ALWAYS —a seducing, corrupting, opposing,

betraying, murdering, lying, oppressing, ensnaring, slandering, falsely accusing,

killing, sinning, dragon-serpent POWER ! These epithets are simply set down from the

Word of God as quoted in the foregoing schedule, and they focalise unerringly in one

word: SIN .”

“The Devil is a scriptural personification of Sin in the flesh, in its several

phases of manifestation—subjective, individual, aggregate, social, and political—in

history, current experience, and prophecy, after the style of figure which speaks of

Wisdom as a Woman, riches as Mammon and the god of this world, Sin as a Master,

etc.”

This old Christadelphian definition is palpably true, and does not need revising;

and no exception to its application can be made in Heb. 2:14 , where it has actually

been proposed to interpret “the devil” by “the law,” i.e. , the law of Moses, which is

apostolically declared to be “holy and just and good” ( Rom. 7:12 ). In view of the

foregoing complete list of passages, try to imagine a “holy and just and good” Devil!

The Christadelphian 1913 Definition CCW

“NOW since impulse to sin arises from the flesh (Jas. 1:14) in response to the

wiles of the tempter, the motive power of which is provided by the life blood coursing

through the arteries of the body, the only way to abolish such impulses is by death, as

saith the Apostle: “He that is dead is free from sin”. In this way the source from which

sin comes, its fountainhead, is destroyed. This occurred in the crucifixion of Jesus,

who not only destroyed the adversary in himself by dying (Heb. 2:14; Eph. 2:15–16),

but will also destroy the power of sin in others (1 John 3:8). “CC W Atonement

“THE first fact that strikes us is that Jesus employed the Scriptures to repel the

suggestions of the tempter. He gave a Bible reason, in each case, for not doing what he

was asked to do. This is suggestive in many ways. It exhibits Jesus in the aspect of

being acquainted with the Scriptures, and of having that memory of their practical

instructions that was equal to his requirements in the hour of need.” “Jesus “learned

obedience” ( Heb 5:8 ), and “increased in wisdom” ( Luke 2:52 ), which implies

development in harmony with and by the use of the means God has appointed for those

ends. If, therefore, Jesus knew the Scriptures, it was because “his custom was” to

frequent the synagogue, and to read the Scriptures.—( Luke 4:16 .) Let no one imagine

that this is inconsistent with his being God manifest in the flesh. All parts of truth are

consistent. His being God manifest in the flesh led to his powerful proneness in a

scriptural direction, and to the fruit-fullness of his applications in this direction; but it

did not make him independent of the testimony which the Spirit in the Psalms says was

his study all the day and the understanding of which made him wiser than his teachers.

—(Psa. 119:97–104.)” Exhortation Bro. Roberts Christadelphian 1879

awawawawawawawawa

WHO WAS THE TEMPTER?

C an we reason from scripture as to the identity of the actual tempter of the Lord?

This article has been suggested by some brothers and sisters and re-examines the

speculations as to who the tempter was, over some one hundred and forty years. Keep

in mind that Christadelphians used to have a reputation for comparing scripture with

scripture.

Firstly, all the temptation or trial, (see page 3) as with Job’s trial was under the

supervision of the Father but the question is who was the medium (moving cause)?

“And immediately the Spirit driveth him into the wilderness. And he was there

in the wilderness forty days, tempted of Satan; and was with the wild beasts;

and the angels ministered unto him.” Mark 1:12, 13

Keep in mind that all that Christ suffered was a part of his probationary trial, (Heb

12:6) fitting him to be high priest.

“For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succour

them that are tempted.” Heb 2:18

“For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of

our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.”

Heb 4:15

Brother CC Walker counselled that we must each be persuaded in our own mind and

hold a balanced view of the temptation.

“Elpis Israel and Christendom Astray present a more balanced view of the

temptation of Christ in the wilderness. Final agreement in interpretation is, of

course, impossible in such a subject.” The Christadelphian 1927

“We willingly print bro. Galbraith’s “thoughts” that readers may know the

reasons why brethren hold the “objective” view of Christ’s temptation. Let each

be persuaded in his own mind, so long as the basic facts are accepted.” The

Christadelphian 1942

Over the years some have made these suggestions, which are mainly quotations from

the pages of the magazine but all from brethren and comprise the gamut of possibilities

An Angel, one of the Elohistic host:

An Angel (1923)

An Angel of light Bro. Thomas

An agent of Caesar: (1866)

John the baptist: (1921)

An entirely subjective conflict solely within Christ’s mind: (1923)

The High Priest “Bro. Thomas.” (1934)

AN ANGEL, ONE OF THE ELOHISTIC HOST:

A fter the global flood, the thinking of the flesh began to form organised myths and

legends to impose religious power over the people as described in Gen 10. With

the tempter called a ‘devil’ or diabolos it is easy to see how the concept of a fallen

immortal angel was developed and interwoven with pagan myths and legends, as

follows:

“The devil was once a high-ranking angel who was originally perfect in all his

ways. At some point in the past, he was overcome with pride and instigated a

large rebellion against God. The Lord reacted by kicking the devil out of

Heaven. It was such an uneven match that Jesus described Satan as falling from

heaven as lightning (Luke 10:18).”

The apostacy reasons that this supposed rebel angel, (diabolos/devil/

satan), had immortal power and:

He only, could offer the kingdoms of the world:

He alone could save the Lord, if he were to persuade him to launch

himself from the pinnacle of the temple.

This sample of religious ‘thinking of the flesh’, illustrates Psalm 50:21 “thou

thoughtest that I was altogether such an one as thyself:” and reveals the ignorance

and indeed blasphemy of the apostasy. It may seem inconceivable but we need to be

aware that over the years while many have abandoned these fables and come to the

truth, others have left the clear teaching of the Bible and gone over to these fables.

AN ANGEL

Dismissing the church ‘devil’, this article reasons that it could not be one of the

Elohistic host:

“Some suggest, and I think believe, that the tempter was an angel; but really

the difficulties in this case are greater. For consider, that no one of the angelic

host would be able to do this on his own initiative, and that he would have to be

specially deputed by Deity to perform the task, and that the angel would in that

case be acting for Him.

What an incongruous picture we have here: the Deity through the

medium of His angel asking His own Son (who from a child had grown in

wisdom and stature, and in favour with God and man, and whose whole life had

been devoted to doing his Father’s business, and His worship) to fall down and

worship Him. Also we must remember that he had constituted him heir of all

things.

The Scriptures show that the angels are used for quite a different

purpose than this. They are even “ministering spirits,” sent forth to minister to

them who shall be heirs of salvation, and not to set a trap for the unwary or to

tempt them to depart from their allegiance to God. And they ministered to the

Son of God when the temptation in the wilderness was ended.

Also the Deity did not require to entice His Son with all these glowing prospects

to obtain His worship and adoration; for he (the Son) had ever rendered to the

Father that worship and adoration due to Him.” The Christadelphian 1923

AN ANGEL OF LIGHT

This phrase does not apply to an immortal Angel. A search of the Ambassador/

Christadelphian from 1864 to 2000: gave ninety seven (97) occurrences of “the angel

of light”, in none of these cases does anyone refer to this as an immortal Angel.

Angel, Elohim means “one sent” and can apply to mortals, the apostle says:

“And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light.” 2 Cor. 11:14

Note that the apostle does not say that, “an angel of light.” is transformed into Satan;

it’s always some within the ecclesia who give the appearance of godliness but are

wolves in sheep’s clothing.

Elpis Israel

“If their apostolicity be granted, it can only be as “false apostles, deceitful

workers, transforming themselves into apostles of Christ. And no marvel”

continues Paul, “for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light.

Therefore, it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the

ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works” ch 2

Apostolic Advocate

“An upstart clergy claiming to be the ambassadors of Jesus Christ, whose word

describes them as wolves for their rapacity, the preachers of another gospel,

ministers of Satan transformed into angels of light.” (Apostolic Advocate,

vol. 5., 1839.)

Wrested Scriptures

“The Satan of this passage is not a rebel angel but rebel Jewish adversaries

who were undermining the apostle Paul’s influence in the Corinthian

ecclesia. (See 2 Cor. 10:2, 10–18; 11:3–26). As Paul said: “for such men are

false apostles, deceitful workmen, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ.

And no wonder for even Satan {the chief leader} disguises himself as an

angel of light. So it is not strange if his servants {misguided supporters} also

disguise themselves as servants of righteousness”. (13–15, RSV). The same

Satan is referred to in 2 Cor. 2:11: “Lest Satan should get an advantage of us:

for we are not ignorant of his devices.” Wrested Scriptures . 1997

Brother Thomas never stated that the ‘tempter’ was one of the Elohistic host

and is misunderstood or at worst misrepresented. His “angel of light,” is clearly

someone from within the Jewish establishment with some understanding of the

scriptures and Israel’s history.

“Some one “came to him” who was his adversary, and who desired his ruin;

or, at least, acted the part of one on the same principle that the adversary was

permitted to put the fidelity of Job to the proof.”

Elpis Israel Page 69 fourth edition 1867 *How could a faithful Elohim desire his

ruin? (Bro H.P. Mansfield covers this very well on page 13).

AN AGENT OF CAESAR:

Before his ministry had begun neither Caesar nor any of his representatives

were at all interested or even knew of Jesus, it was only after the resurrection when the

Lord had commanded that the gospel be preached in the inhabited Roman world (Matt.

24:14) but in any case Matthew and Luke use two different words for world. Matthew

uses the ‘Kosmos’ or Judean kingdoms bestowed by Caesar while Luke uses

‘Oikoumene’ which in fact comprised the Roman Empire. (see page 23/25) Though

Christ will inherit the area of the ancient Roman Empire, Caesar’s agent would be

hardly likely to offer it to this humble carpenters son.

JOHN THE BAPTIST

Some have suggested John the baptist (1921). “Another questions, “if John

was the diabolos would he be excluded from the kingdom?”

John was the herald to proclaim the king “This is he, of whom it is written, Behold, I

send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee.” Luke

7:27; Matt 11:11 John proclaimed “Behold the Lamb of God!” John 1:36. The Lord

knew John and there is no evidence that this faithful servant was used in this way and

no reason to suppose that he will not be among the faithful, on the contrary see Luke

7:28.

AN ENTIRELY SUBJECTIVE CONFLICT SOLELY WITHIN CHRIST’S MIND.

“Some think the devil was Christ’s own inclinations, but this is untenable in

view of the statement that he departed from him for a season; it is also

untenable in view of the harmony that existed between the mind of Christ and

the will of the Father (John 8: 29)” (Christendom Astray, page 137). (See Elpis

Israel, page 78).

“The promptings in our case do often proceed from within; in the case of the

two Adams they came from without—from the serpent in the one case and from

“the angel of light” in the other” (Christadelphian, 1873, page 532). JT

“In what is called the temptation in the wilderness Jesus was assailed, as the

first Adam had been, with reference to ‘the lust of the flesh, eyes and pride of

life’ and an external agent appealed to internal desires” (Christadelphian,

1909).

“Then was Jesus led up of the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted of the

devil.” Matt. 4:1 (Matthew uses devil diabolos nine times) It is obviously an

external personage. Clearly the temptation or rather trial (James 1:13), was under

the supervision of the Father but who was the diabolos medium (moving cause)?

Matthew 4:5 “Then the devil taketh him:”

Matthew 4:8 “Again, the devil taketh him:”

Matthew 4:11 “Then the devil leaveth him:”

Luke 4:2 “Being forty days tempted of the devil:”

Luke 4:5 “And the devil, taking him:”

Luke 4:6 “And the devil said unto him:”

Luke 4:13 “And when the devil had ended all the temptation, he departed

from him for a season:”

“Some one “came to him” who was his adversary, and who desired his ruin;

or, at least, acted the part of one on the same principle that the adversary was

permitted to put the fidelity of Job to the proof.” Elpis Israel Page 69 fourth

edition 1867 (see Job’s satan page 61)

“The Devil is a bad Power — ALWAYS” The Christadelphian : 1913

“THAT diabolos , rendered devil in the common version, is SIN , appears from

the expressions of Paul in various parts of his writings. He says ‘that having the

power of death is diabolos .’ The power of death is that which causes death. ”—

(Bro. THOMAS in Herald of the Kingdom , August, 1852.)

With the ‘Satan’ by comparing scripture we can show that there are both ‘good’ and

‘bad’ adversaries and in the case of Peter when he was converted he did strengthen his

brethren. Where are two or better, three references we can compare to show a ‘good’

diabolos devil?

THE HIGH PRIEST

From time to time some brethren have concluded that the only credible tempter was the

High Priest, evidence pointing to this is compelling and this is examined starting on

page 11 also p13.

Brother John Ullman wrote the following well reasoned comments.

Who Was the Adversary?

“Who was the one who put the Son of God to the test? “Who he was does not

appear”, says Brother Thomas. Quite so. But may we suggest that five

interesting passages of Scripture be considered 7

The expressions which occur in Mat. 4:3 and Lk. 4:3 are identical “If thou be

the Son of God.” The Greek reads ei huios tou theou, lit. “If a son thou art of

the God”. The only other passage where this statement is found, in this exact

form, is in Mat 27: 40 Those who had taken pleasure in the Lord’s crucifixion

“reviled him, wagging their heads” as they beheld his body nailed to the tree

They sneered: “If thou be the Son of God, come down from the cross” (Mat.

27:40) Who was the spokesman? Who, among the Jews, uttered the final words

which condemned the Lord to death? None other than the high priest, Caiaphas

(Jn. 11: 49-53) Almost these identical words, with the addition of Christos

(Messiah), are to be found in Mat 26:63. And the speaker? None other than the

high priest!

Could there be any other man among the Jews more suited to be the Satan to

the Son of God? The man who, in his heinous disregard for divine precepts and

prophecy, apostatised the very office intended for God’s own Son.

What Fellowship Hath Christ with Belial?

The Diabolos knew that the Lord was “destined to possess” all things, and that

“he was to obtain them through suffering. Jesus knew this too Now, as the flesh

dislikes suffering, the tempter proposed to gratify the desire of his eyes by

giving him all he saw on the easy condition of doing homage to him as the god

of the world” (p. 78 E.I.). An alliance between the ruling classes of the Jews,

with the high priest the dominant figure, and the Son of God, would have given

Christ incalculable benefits provided he had been willing to use his miraculous

powers for the self-indulgence of the flesh. But “he preferred the grace of God

with suffering, to the gratification of his flesh with all pomp and pageantry of

this vain and transitory world” (p 79 E.I,)

The flesh, given free reign to pursue every form of rich and sensual pleasure is

the very antithesis of self-denial and suffering in humble submission to the will

of God. The Son of God refused to be diverted from giving total commitment to

fulfilling the will and purpose of his Father.

“What fellowship hath Christ with Belial?” asks Brother Thomas. Then comes

the unequivocal answer: “Certainly none”. And all who claim to be numbered

among his true disciples are called upon to follow his pattern of behaviour, as

he is their singular exemplar. “Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an

example, that ye should follow his steps” (1 Pet 2: 21),” Bro. John Ullman

JUDAS ISCARIOT WAS A DEVIL

“Jesus answered them, Have not I chosen you twelve, and one of you is a

devil?” John 6:70

Who is the devil who put betrayal into the heart of Judas Iscariot?

“And supper being ended, the devil having now put into the heart of Judas

Iscariot, Simon's son, to betray him”; John 13:2

This ‘devil’ quite clearly is the Sadducees who bribed Judas:

“And Judas Iscariot, one of the twelve, went unto the chief priests, to betray

him unto them. And when they heard it, they were glad, and promised to give

him money. And he sought how he might conveniently betray him.” Lke 22: 10, 11


JOB’S SATAN Bro Thomas

First consider the Lord at the end of the forty days fast:

“If any one had the power, under the pressure of intense hunger, he would

convert stones into bread and eat them. Jesus had that power; and there was one

acquainted with the Scripture , introduced himself to his notice at this crisis,

and suggested that he should use it. Paul doubtless alludes to this personage in

2 Cor. 11:14 saying, “the Satan is transformed into an Angel of Light.” Such

an angel is a messenger enlightened in the word, who handles it in such a way

as to test the fidelity of others to it. Such an one becomes a Satan in suggesting

a course of action in conformity with the promptings of the flesh.” “And if

Deity became Satan to Israel, and to Job, it is not to be denied that an angel

may have assumed the same attitude in the case of Jesus Christ.” Eureka vol 3

Now our brother is not talking here of an angel disguised as a devil-diabolic-adversary,

concealing from the Lord that he was of the Elohistic host; that cannot be sustained

from scripture.

Look now at how brother Thomas refers to Job’s trial.

“Job was a man of substance and power, being “the greatest of all the men of the

East”. He was one of “the sons of the Deity” belonging to that generation. There

was among them also another man of power, an oriental, who was

nominally a coreligionist, but full of envy and unfriendly feeling towards

Job. This is not an unusual circumstance, even in societies reputed apostolic. In

these, Satan’s too often abound, and become the adversaries of those they

cannot imitate. In Job’s day, there were general gatherings of the Men of

the East, with the sons of the Deity, at the place where the symbol of

Yahweh’s presence was established. If I might hazard a conjecture I should

say, they assembled at Salem, in the days of the High Priesthood of

Melchizedek.” “the sons of the Elohim came to present themselves before

Yahweh, and the Satan hassahtahn , came also among them.”

The conflict between ‘seed of the serpent and the seed of the woman from the

foundation of the world.

“Here were two classes of worshippers, the nominal and the true; (Note) the

former constituting the Satan; the latter consisting of the Sons of Deity, of

whom Job was most eminent and conspicuous. Among his adversaries, one

seems to have been more notable than the rest. This was probably the Chief of

the Sabeans, a tribe of Arabia Felix, who fell upon Job and did him much

mischief. To this man Yahweh said by His priest (for, in Scripture, what is said

by his priests and prophets, Yahweh is said to say Himself) “Whence comest

thou?” To which he replied as any marauder would, “From going to and fro in

the earth, and from walking up and down in it.” His attention was then directed

to Job, whose character was highly eulogized.

This developed the latent enmity of the Sheikh, who insinuated that Job’s fear

of Elohim had been purchased by extraordinary favours; but that, if these were

withdrawn, and he were reduced to poverty, he would curse Him to his face.

Yahweh, however, knew Job better; nevertheless, He was willing that he should

be tested, that his enemies might be confounded; and a triumph of principle in

adversity might be exhibited, as an example for the Sons of Deity in all future

times. Therefore to Job’s adversary He granted permission to do what he

pleased against him, short of personal injury. Having obtained this grant,

he returned home, and organized his Sabeans and Chaldeans for raids,

which, with the fire of heaven, soon stripped Job of all he possessed.

Now, in the first chapter of Job, this is all attributed to Satan, as though,

according to popular tradition, it had been done by a Fallen Angel, the

world has agreed to call “The Devil.” But, in the second chapter, the

Eternal Power informs us, that it was He that brought Job to poverty; for

addressing his adversary, He says, “thou movedst me against him, to

destroy him without cause.” All that was done being adverse to Job, it was

attributed to his personal enemy, who was the moving cause; though the

efficient cause was the power of Deity Himself.”

Quite clearly Job’s trial was under the supervision of the Father, (see booklet p 3)

however the medium (moving cause) was a Mortal antagonistic man, not an angel

disguised as an adversary and our brother applies the same principle to the Lord’s trial

Matthew 4:1

“Having arrived at the crisis when Jesus was suffering from the keenest hunger,

the adversary assumed the character of an angel, or messenger of light to him. Being acquainted with “the law and the testimony”, for which he knew Jesus had

a profound regard, he adduced it in support of his suggestions. He invited him to

gratify the cravings of the flesh by helping himself. He was God’s son; but then

his Father seemed to have abandoned him; why not therefore use the power he

possessed, whose presence in him was of itself a proof of God’s approval of its

exercise, and “command that the stones be made bread”? But Jesus disregarded

the reasoning; and set it aside by “It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone,

THE BIBLE

How undeniably true is the English Authorised Bible, from Genesis to Revelation, proven to be

the Holy and Inspired Spirit Word of Yahweh, when it is confirmed by the quotations from Old

and New Testaments, which establish so powerfully the interpretation of the symbols of

Revelation chapter Twenty One in particular.

May such visions instil into our hearts and minds a greater desire to Love and to

maintain zeal and faith to continue steadfastly in any further days of probation that our Heavenly Father may mercifully grant us, in order that we may create a faithful character that will obtain

for us Eternal Life and Glory, through the Grace and Love and the sacrificial Life, Death, and

Glorious Resurrection of our Lord and Master.

“I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the ecclesias. I am the

root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star. And the Spirit and

the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst

come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely. He which testifieth these

things saith, Surely I come quickly. Amen. Even so, come, Lord Jesus. The grace of our

Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen.” Rev. 22 : 16-21 R. Osmond

BOOKLETS (subject to availability) Anastasis/Catechesis (J T) .................................................................................. 0.40

Atonement Clear Consistent Christadelphian Teaching

(Vol 1. Vol 2. Vol 3.) A5 each ..................................................................... 0.40

Atonement (H.S.) ............................................................................................... 0.30 Atonement (Fred Taylor) ................................................................................. 0.30

Baptism Preparation Notes (A4) folds flat) (compiled)............................. 0.60

Baptismal Formula (Christadelphian vol. 51) ............................................ 0.10 Breastplate (Urim & Thumim) (R Osmond) ...................................................... 0.50

Britain’s Part In The Latter Days ........................................................................ 0.30

Blessed And Only Potentate (J.T.). ..................................................................... 0.40

Blood Of Christ (R.R.) .......................................................................... 0.30 Christ Establishes Kingdom ................................................................................ 0.10

Daniel Chapter 11 (R.R.) ..................................................................................... 0.34 Desert Conqueror (Psalm 68) (B.P). .................................................................. 0.50

Divine Principle Of Marriage (R Osmond) ........................................................ 0.40

Day Christ Was Crucified (R Osmond) ............................................................. 0.10

Elpis Israel Plan ................................................................................................... 0.10 Eureka Diary ........................................................................................................ 0.10

Ezekiel Temple Handbook .................................................................................. 0.50

Ezekiel Temple Graphic (use) (one page colour) ( M.W.)............................... 0.10

Garden In Eden (R Osmond) ............................................................................... 0.10 Gogue And Magogue (J.T.)................................................................................. 0.40

How To Search The Scriptures (J.T.) ................................................................. 0.25

Instructor—Questions and answers (A4) folds flat) (R.R) ......................... 0.50 Is Prayer To Christ Scriptural? (J.T.) .................................................................. 0.10

Israel’s Coming Triumph Over Edom; The Locality Of Armageddon (H.P.M.)

Yahweh’s Long Suffering (R.R.); The Priesthood Of The Kingdom (J.T.). .... 0.50

Yahweh Name, Why Use ?; Memorial Name Of God; Index To Titles Of The Deity; Name Of God In The New Testament; 134 Cases Where

“Yahweh” Changed To “Adonai” ....................................................................... 0.40

Last Days Of Judah’s Commonwealth (J.T.)...................................................... 0.40

Unique Interpretation of Nebuchadnezzar's Image (J.T.) .................................. 0.40 Marriage and Divorce. What Saith The Scriptures? (compiled) ........................ 0.60

Mosaic And Nazarene Teaching Concerning God (J.T.). .................................. 0.80

Mount Olivet Prophecy (J.T.) ............................................................................. 0.40

Mystery Of The Covenant Of The Holy Land Explained (J.T.) ........................ 0.60 Mystery of Godliness (J.T.)................................................................................ 0.40

Original SIN - Men Sinners In A Twofold Sense (J.T.); ................................ 0.40

Odology (analysis of claims of Spiritualism.) (J,T.) .......................................... 0.40

Origins Of Christ-Mass (compiled) .................................................................... 0.40 Progress Of Mystery Of Iniquity (J.U.R.) ......................................................... 0.10

Sinai Its Position And Purpose (R Osmond) ...................................................... 0.30

Temptation Of Christ (compiled) ........................................................................ 0.50

Tyre & Daughter Of Tyre ................................................................................... 0.15 Woman & Her Migration To Rome (paganism & early church) (M.W.) ...... 0.50

“Exhortations” By Bro. John Thomas ............................................................... 0.30 Michael Walker 75 Central Ave Northfield Birmingham B31 4JA [email protected]

the temptation of christ - wordpress.com€¦ · page 3 brother roberts pointed out that the truth...

Documents